Charles Blaha, a former State Department expert on the vetting of U.S. weapons transfers to other countries, helps us understand this important moment in the Israel-Hamas conflict. After an extended period of tension between U.S President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Biden has decided to freeze some transfers of weapons to Israel, at least temporarily. In his conversation with RBI director John Torpey, Blaha explains United States law and policy governing weapons transfers, which imposes stringent controls to avoid the misuse of U.S. weaponry. Blaha also discusses the role of the protests on campuses and their doubtful effects on changing American or Israeli policy. Finally, the conversation delves into the overall posture of the United States vis-à-vis arms transfers to Israel.

John Torpey 

As the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has remained committed to an invasion of Rafah “with or without” an agreement on a cease-fire and hostage exchanges with Hamas, the United States government has grown sufficiently irritated with Israel’s behavior to temporarily delay some arms shipments to its Middle East ally.  This has been one of the demands of the critics of Israel’s response to the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023.  But it has also emerged as an aim of some in and near the U.S. Government who have been seeking to limit the US Government’s contribution to Israel’s perceived over-reach.  What’s going on?  Welcome to International Horizons, a podcast of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies that brings scholarly and diplomatic expertise to bear on our understanding of a wide range of international issues. My name is John Torpey, and I’m director of the Ralph Bunche Institute at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Today, we are fortunate to have with us Charles (Cob) Blaha, who retired from the State Department in August 2023 after a 32-year career as both a Foreign Service Officer and a civil servant.  For the last seven and a half years, he was the Director of the State Department’s Office of Security and Human Rights, responsible for ensuring that human rights considerations were integrated into decisions on security assistance and arms transfers, among other issues.  Blaha’s overseas assignments included Panama, Cuba, Turkey, Iraq, the Czech Republic, and the US Mission to the UN in Geneva, where he focused principally on the UN Human Rights Council.  Thanks so much for being with us today, Cob Blaha.

Charles Blaha 

Glad to be here.

John Torpey 

Thanks so much. So perhaps we could begin… It’s a sort of thorny and complicated set of issues, but perhaps we could just begin by having you review briefly the legal and policy background to US weapons shipments abroad and how they’re affecting the United States posture in regard to the Israel Hamas conflict.

Charles Blaha 

Well, on the legal side, John, the the Arms Export Control Act, gives the President the United States, the power to control arms exports and those can be used for a variety of things, mainly self-defense, which is, I think, the the concern for Israel here. So that’s the legal side. On the policy side, every administration issues, something called a Conventional Arms Transfer Policy (CAT), doesn’t have the force of law, but these are guidelines that each Administration uses to have decision makers consider when reaching decisions, they don’t mandate any specific decision. They don’t deal with specific cases. But these are policy guidelines. And in February 2023, the Biden administration issued its Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, and it was a very good one, this Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, the one that the Biden administration issued in February 2023, was, in my view, the best Conventional Arms Transfer Policy ever, in terms of human rights, and international humanitarian law. And a among other things, one of the significant changes is that  that CAT policy says that if it’s more likely than not, that a transfer will result in misuse, that transfer should be prohibited. So what would be an example of misuse? Well, a violate if the transfer would be used to violate human rights, if it would be used to violate international humanitarian law, if it would be used to violate the Geneva Conventions, if it would be used in acts of genocide, if it would be used in acts of violence against children. And so, so we have the law, the Arms Export Control Act, and we have the CAT policy. Those are the those are the two main things.

John Torpey 

So against that background in the last week, or week or so the Biden administration has decided to at least temporarily freeze the delivery of certain weapons and these guidance systems that turned dumb bombs into smart bombs and it’s been something of a watershed it seems to the untrained eye I mean, this seems like a pretty major rift between Israel and its main benefactor and ally. I wonder if you could talk about how this policy and legal background informs what’s been happening.

Charles Blaha 

Yeah, well, um, this, this does represent a reversal of what the Biden administration’s policy has been on arms transfers since October 7. Since October 7, the policy has been: there will be no conditions on arms transfers to Israel. And actually, what this policy does is, in my view, a very good thing, because on the one hand, many people have been saying there should be no conditions, no strings attached, give Israel everything at once. And on the other hand, from the other side, there have been calls for a cut off on all arms to Israel. And this decision, in my view, represents a pretty wise middle course. It doesn’t cut all arms transfers, but what it does, is it it suspends transfers of the items that have been causing the most civilian casualties. And that is, these air to ground munitions. It does represent a course that has already even though it’s only a few days old, prompted criticism from Israel, it’s prompted criticism from the Republican Party. It has prompted criticism from some people in the President’s own party. But really, in my view, it’s a wise, moderated decision that’s pretty well aimed at the munitions that are causing the most the most civilian casualties.

John Torpey 

So, this is a move that, however, is somewhat surprising, I think, to some people. I mean, Joe Biden has been clear that his sort of alliance with the Israelis is, as he says, or as he’s concerned for protection of Israel is ironclad. So it seems as though this has been a pretty major break for him to have made, even if there are many people out there who wish this had happened already, or long ago. So I wonder if you could talk a little bit about what you see as the forces that have led to this to this break. I mean you’ve been involved in independent task force on on these arms transfer policies, and that are possible abrogation. And, of course, this is one of the major demands of what’s been happening on a lot of university campuses around the United States. So I wonder if you could talk about how you see the process that led to this decision?

Charles Blaha 

Well, I think there have been, there have been three factors. First of all, the civilian casualties have continued to mount more and more innocent Palestinians, many of them children have been killed. And and I think that was a factor on the President’s mind. I think the second factor was what appears to be an imminent Israeli military action in Rafah that actually has partially already happened. And everybody in the administration agrees that Israel has not yet taken the steps necessary to ensure that people can be safely evacuated from Rafah and that any Israeli military action will protect adequately protect the civilians remaining in Rafah when the full operation happens. And then I think the third thing is that the President and and the national security adviser in the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense have all tried to talk to Israel about measures it should take in order to safeguard civilians in Rafah, in order to change its operations to mitigate civilian casualties. Israel has not paid attention to any of that. Now, Israel’s a sovereign nation, and they can make their own decisions. However, the United States is a sovereign nation too and when it comes to decisions about military assistance, when it comes to decisions about arms transfers, we can legitimately set conditions on those. So I think it was those three factors the rising civilian casualties, and the inminency of an operation in Rafah, and, and the fact that none of the other attempts to work with the Israelis on these issues has worked.

John Torpey 

I see. Well, I wonder, though, whether I could ask you. I mean, I know you’re not an analyst of campus politics, necessarily. But could you comment on how much of a difference you think those protests have made in coming to this decision?

Charles Blaha 

Oh, well, the President has said they haven’t made any difference. And actually, I, I believe him on that. I am concerned, though, that the attention given to the campus protests, and the actions of the protesters and the actions of the police have really taken the focus off, what should be the center of debate, and that is, what is Israel doing in Gaza? And what what policies should the United States follow in light of those developments?

John Torpey 

I see. So another thing that was supposed to have happened this week was that there was supposed to be a report, if I understand correctly, from the Administration to Congress, about Israel’s use of the weapons that we’ve given them. And for some reason the issuance of that report has been delayed. I wonder if you could say, why it’s been delayed and what you expect it to contain insofar as you can say.

Charles Blaha 

Yeah John, the report you’re talking about, was mandated by a National Security Memorandum that President Biden issued in February of this year. It’s it was National Security Memorandum 20, NSM 20, that as we as we are calling it. What NSM 20 did is it built on the CAT policy that I mentioned before and what it required was, it was assurances from a number of nations, including Israel, because it was it was a worldwide policy covering anybody who had received arms or assistance from the US; what it requires is assurances that the items transferred will be used in compliance with International Humanitarian Law and there’s also a provision in there that requires assurances that the nation’s receiving those items will comply with something called Section 620-I of the Foreign Assistance Act. And section 620-I from The Foreign Assistance Act prohibits military assistance to states that are impeding humanitarian aid. So what NSM 20 required was for Israel to give assurances that the items would be used in accordance with International Humanitarian Law, and that Israel would not impede or otherwise restrict humanitarian assistance. Now, that report was supposed to come out May 8, and it has been delayed, today is May 10 and the report still is not out. I think what is happening is I think there has been a lot of debate, because whatever this report finds, if it finds anything, will have should have consequences, and even broader ones, perhaps for even broader ones than banning these are then suspending the shipment of these big bombs. It could have broader consequences than that. And I think that is that has given people, a lot of pause. I don’t know what the report is going to find. I am hopeful that it will make findings consistent with the facts. And the facts are that there have been multiple instances in which there are credible reports that Israel has violated International Humanitarian Law, its operations. And obviously, it’s very clear that Israel has impeded humanitarian assistance to Gaza, starting with their October 9 announcement that Gaza would be under complete siege, and includes things like the attack on the World Central Kitchen, employees who were trying to deliver humanitarian aid and just in the last couple of days, Israel seizure and closure of the Rafah crossing through which a lot of assistance is coming. Now, Israel claims the crossing is open. People on the ground say it isn’t. And in fact, it is a warzone through which humanitarian assistance cannot pass.

John Torpey 

Yes, I mean, I guess, I myself was most struck in regard to the impedance of humanitarian assistance by the fact that the Israeli government was so resistant to such aid that it forced the United States government to build an offshore pier so that we could deliver humanitarian assistance that would have been most efficiently delivered through trucks on the ground. Can you explain that?

Charles Blaha 

Well, this goes right to the heart of what 620-I, the provision that bars assistance to the countries that impede humanitarian aid, it goes right to the heart of 620-I it because one of the people, the the legislators who passed that cited, among other things, the fact that impediments to US supporting humanitarian assistance, cost the US taxpayers more. That was one of the reasons now, it’s not the only reason. I mean, the big reason is obviously, we want to provide humanitarian assistance. But the fact that we the United States had to go and build a pier at US taxpayer expense, it goes to the heart of why section 620-I was legislated in the first place.

John Torpey 

Right. So you are quoted in a recent Propublica article as saying that “there are literally dozens of Israeli security force units that have committed gross violations of human rights and remain eligible for assistance, because of the State Department’s failure to apply the law”. Can you explain exactly what you’re talking about there and address the question, how would more rigorous enforcement of our laws affect Israel’s ability to go after Hamas?

Charles Blaha 

Yeah, well, in that interview, I was speaking to a law called the Leahy Law. And the Leahy Law, there are actually two laws, one for the one that applies to the State Department, one that applies the Defense Department, but they’re pretty much the same. The Leahy Law prohibits United States security assistance to units that have committed gross violations of human rights. In the case of Israel, our assistance is so massive, that what we have to do is we have to give Israel a list of units that have committed gross violations of human rights and get Israel’s assurances that assistance will not go to those units. So far, the State Department and that provision of law was passed in 2019. In five years, in five years, the State Department has never complied with that law. They have never given Israel the name of a single security unit that is ineligible for for United States assistance. And this includes a notorious unit called the Netzah Yehuda battalion. The Netzah Yehudah battalion in January 2022, falsely arrested, bound, gagged and left on a warehouse floor, a 78 year old American citizen of Palestinian descent, he died, he died of a stress induced heart attack. And so far, that unit remains eligible for United States security assistance. That is appalling. But to your question of whether how this will affect, how withholding US assistance from the units will affect Israel’s ability to go after Hamas, the answer is not at all. US only supplies 15 to 20% of Israel’s defense budget if you know depending on the year, and money is fungible. So Israel is free to finance those units on its own. Israel has a very well financed, well supplied, well trained military, and other other US assistance to Israel is continuing. So for example, when Iran attacked Israel in April, the US not only helped warn and track those missiles, but it also helped Israel by shooting down hundreds of those missiles. But what such designation would do is it would send a valuable message to the as to Israel’s defense forces, that there are consequences for gross violations of human rights and hopefully provide them an incentive to prevent such, to prevent such violations and in the event that there are such violations to hold the perpetrators accountable, because under the Leahy Law, if there’s accountability, and there has been none in the Netzha Yehuda case, if there is accountability, the units are ineligible for assistance. So there’s always a path open to Israel to get out from under those those ineligibilities. And actually, that’s, that’s the thing that we all hope would happen.

John Torpey 

Right. So I guess what strikes me and listening to your discussion of these laws and these violations of the laws is that to a certain extent, and maybe to a large extent, what I mean, it’s one thing for Israel to be able to defend itself to go after Hamas in response to the attacks of October 7 but there’s an awful lot, from your account, there’s an awful lot of violation of our laws and policies, in their actions using the military assistance, basically, that we’ve provided with them. And so getting back to your point about what’s important here is to focus on what Israel is doing and what it should be doing. How are we going to get Israel to, you know, to comply with those constraints?

Charles Blaha 

Well, they’ll, you know, we should use the levers that we have and the levers that we have, or some of the some of the tools that I suggest that the Leahy law is one, suspensions of certain defense items and defense services would be another, we can’t we can’t guarantee what, if any, effect this will have on Israel. And remember, the question is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself. The question is not whether Israel should go after Hamas, they should. The question is, how, how. And there are a number of ways that Israel can accomplish this without causing such massive civilian casualties. And I would add that massive civilian casualties is going to turn into a security, is turning into a security problem for Israel, it will be, why? because this will fuel terrorist recruiting for Hamas, and for other like minded organizations. And the other problem is, of course, when we talk about US policy, our policy to Israel up to the time when the President suspended the shipment of these larger to ground munitions has, has caused the United States to hemorrhage, diplomatic influence, and to hemorrhage credibility, that matters. Because it has, it has hurt. First of all, I’ve worked in the Human Rights Bureau, it’s hurt our human rights advocacy, people point to it, point to our unconditional support of Israel and say, How can you do this? when they’re causing such massive civilian casualties. And we are in, the big issue right now, in US foreign policy is strategic competition, strategic competition with China. And in in that competition, we need to to have partners and allies. Well, this is really costing us especially in the Global South, so countries like Brazil, countries like South Africa, countries like Indonesia, these countries matter in global competition in helping us to try to compete with China, and our policies, with regard to Israel up to now have really, really hurt us in the Global South.

John Torpey 

How widespread would you say your views are in the State Department itself right now?

Charles Blaha 

Well, I would say in the rank and file, very, very spread. And there’s been a lot of reporting on that. There have been a lot of so called dissent memos that it’s a confidential channel within the State Department that allows officers to confidentially express their views and express policy options to the Secretary. There have been a few resignations. But among the rank and file, it’s pretty clear that most people feel that we do need to adjust our policy to Israel towards some of the options, some of the policy options I’ve been talking about. There are also people who feel very strongly that there should be no conditions and we need to just continue to give Israel everything it wants to not question Israel’s behavior and not criticize Israel. My impression is though, that that’s a minority of State Department personnel.

John Torpey 

And would you say that the President’s recent decisions regarding the transfer of arms is a kind of a moral decision, a strategic decision? Or a political decision? Or in what? You know, a combination?

Charles Blaha 

Well, you know, I, you know, I can’t get inside the President’s mind. For me, it is a question of following our own laws and policies. So when I was in the, when I was head of the Office of Security and Human Rights, one of the things that was so difficult for me is it was clear to me, with regard to Israel, that we were not following our own laws, we were not following our own policies. And there is there is, for me anyway, a moral aspect to it because every time you see a collapsed building, every time you see a dead or a wounded Palestinian kid, the odds are that happened because of a US supplied item. And in there is obviously a strategic aspect to it because of what I just described, in terms of opinion in the Middle East and opinion in the Global South. This is really hurting us, diplomatically, in throughout the world. So for me, I would say it has all those aspects to it, John.

John Torpey 

Well, thanks very much for a very thoughtful and in depth discussion of these issues and of the kind of legal and policy background to them, which I think should be very helpful, certainly for me, and I hope for our listeners as well. Unless you have a final comment, I want to wrap up today’s episode, I want to thank Cob Charles Blaha for sharing his insight about the laws concerning US weapons shipments to other countries, and how they’re affecting the US government’s posture in regard to the Israel Hamas conflict. I want to thank Oswaldo Mena Aguilar for his technical assistance and to acknowledge Duncan Mackay for sharing his song International Horizons as the theme music for the show. This is John Torpey, saying, thanks for joining us, and we look forward to having you with us for the next episode of International Horizons.

Charles Blaha 

Thanks for having me.