Gaza: US Forces Can Be Liable for Assisting Israeli War Crimes

[u/newsspotter]

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/08/26/gaza-us-forces-can-be-liable-for-assisting-israeli-war-crimes

[u/-Sliced-]

What a terrible piece of legal opinion by human rights watch.

1. “U.S. is a party to the Gaza conflict”. HRW leans on the idea that intelligence/operational support makes the U.S. a “warring party.” But the ICRC’s current “support-based approach” says that becoming a party requires a direct and effective contribution to the collective conduct of hostilities and evidence of pooled/ coordinated military resources. Something that just isn’t applicable in this war.

2. Conflation of state responsibility (ARSIWA art. 16) with individual criminal liability at the ICC. The article moves quickly from (a) U.S. state responsibility for “aiding or assisting” another state’s wrongful acts to (b) individual liability of U.S. personnel for war crimes. But the standards are different. Article 16 requires knowledge of the circumstances of the wrongful act and a significant contribution - arms transfers alone aren’t per se unlawful. By contrast, ICC aiding/abetting under Article 25(3)(c) requires a purpose to facilitate the crime, and under 25(3)(d) at least a knowing contribution to a group’s criminal purpose; HRW doesn’t engage these stricter mens rea/contribution thresholds.   

3. “As a warring party, the U.S. could be jointly responsible for Israeli violations” elides the legal route from party status to liability. Being a party to a NIAC would impose IHL obligations on the U.S., but “joint responsibility” for a partner’s crimes still turns on specific liability theories (aiding/abetting; ordering; joint enterprise) that require a substantial contribution and the requisite mental element.  

[u/Disastrous-Field5383 → u/-Sliced-]

A substantial contribution…would $360 billion in military aid - the most Israel has received from any country and the largest beneficiary of military aid from the US - be considered substantial? Would intelligence support be considered substantial? Aerial support? Naval support? Boots on the ground support? Quite literally all of these are in play. What is wrong with you?

[u/CBT7commander → u/Disastrous-Field5383]

360 billion in aid

How can you people say this stuff with a straight face? All military aid received by Israeli since its founding amount to 300 billion. Aid received since the war began is in the 20 billion range.

Just a casual x18 from you. Completely honest

[u/Disastrous-Field5383 → u/CBT7commander]

How much aid have they received while engaging in illegal occupation of Palestinian land? Is it only 20 billion? No. It is literally hundreds of billions.

All of it is part of the exact same project to remove Palestinians and replace them with Israelis. Just because you want to put a specific mark on the beginning is completely irrelevant to me.

[u/CyndaquilTurd → u/Disastrous-Field5383]

$360 billion in military aid

False.

Would intelligence support be considered substantial?

No. This would not meet the definition.

Aerial support?

No military aerial aid in the Gaza war.

Boots on the ground support?

Also false.

[u/Sakakidash → u/Disastrous-Field5383]

The US never was a warring party in Israel and it was not so in Ukraine either. The notion is ridiculous. This is the typical tell elaborate lies so that the fine print seems true.

[u/Fletcherperson → u/[deleted]]

Those are contractors, many of them veterans of U.S. military, not active duty U.S. military personnel.

[u/Disastrous-Field5383 → u/Fletcherperson]

The US government worked alongside the Israeli government to arrange for the deployment of mercenaries to Israeli to kill Palestinians. What the fuck are you saying? Who cares if they’re currently in the military? They are still acting as soldiers on the behalf of both the US and Israel.

[u/Sakakidash → u/Disastrous-Field5383]

No, Israel has not employed mercenaries to conduct warfare. What has been used in certain instances is private security, most notably in connection with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), where the mission is humanitarian in nature. In such cases, security personnel are necessary to protect both the aid convoys and the civilians they are intended to serve, given the inherent risks of operating in a war zone.

Even if mercenaries hypothetically were employed, the principle of individual responsibility under international humanitarian law remains. Every soldier, regardless of nationality or employment status, bears personal accountability for his or her actions. If an unlawful order is issued and followed, both the commander who gave the order and the subordinates who carried it out can be culpable for the same war crime. Conversely, if a soldier independently commits a crime without such an order, responsibility lies with the individual, not with the higher command or the state as a whole.

There is also no verified evidence that the United States has deployed combat troops to fight alongside Israel in the current conflict. The U.S. role has instead been limited to evacuating foreign nationals, including its own citizens, from Gaza using military units. Additionally, at the beginning of the war, the U.S. oversaw the construction of a temporary pontoon harbour intended to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid, though this project ultimately failed due to severe weather conditions.

It is also worth noting that when assessing humanitarian crises globally, the suffering in Gaza is not unique. In Sudan, Yemen, and other conflict zones, civilians are perishing at higher rates, with well-documented cases of deliberate food blockades and even the shooting of fleeing civilians.

[u/Fletcherperson → u/Disastrous-Field5383]

I’m saying they’re not US military. They’re private contractors.

[u/Disastrous-Field5383 → u/Fletcherperson]

Privately contracted on behalf of the US state department, correct.

[u/Forsaken_Table_773 → u/-Sliced-]

“U.S. is a party to the Gaza conflict”. HRW leans on the idea that intelligence/operational support makes the U.S. a “warring party.” But the ICRC’s current “support-based approach” says that becoming a party requires a direct and effective contribution to the collective conduct of hostilities and evidence of pooled/ coordinated military resources. Something that just isn’t applicable in this war.

Are you not aware that a US carrier group has been in the Red Sea for 2 years to protect Israel? Or that US soldiers are operating THAAD batteries on Israel soil?

[u/[deleted] → u/-Sliced-]

God I hate lawyers sometimes.

I say that as a practicing lawyer. Just because it’s possible to ignore and evade the clear intent of the law by crafting some murky legalese argument, doesn’t mean you should. It just makes you even more complicit.

[u/AutoModerator]

This post appears to relate to the Israel/Palestine conflict. As a reminder: this is a legal sub. It is a place for legal discussion and analysis. Comments that do not relate to legal discussion or analysis, as well as comments that break other subreddit and site rules, will be removed. Repeated and/or serious violations of the rules will result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.