Israel's Gaza war conduct under scrutiny

US intel found Israeli military lawyers warned there was evidence of war crimes

WASHINGTON:

The United States gathered intelligence last year that Israel's military lawyers warned there was evidence that could support war crimes charges against Tel Aviv for its military operations in Gaza reliant on American-supplied weapons, five former US officials said.

The previously unreported intelligence, described by the former officials as among the most startling shared with top US policymakers during the war, pointed to doubts within the Israeli military about the legality of its tactics that contrasted sharply with Israel's public stance defending its actions.

Two of the former US officials said the material was not broadly circulated within the government until late in the Biden administration, when it was disseminated more widely ahead of a congressional briefing in December 2024.

The intelligence deepened concerns in Washington over Israel's conduct in a war it said was necessary to eliminate Hamas fighters embedded in civilian infrastructure. There were concerns Israel was intentionally targeting civilians and humanitarian workers, a potential war crime which Israel has strongly denied.

US officials expressed alarm at the findings, particularly as the mounting civilian death toll in Gaza raised concerns that Israel's operations might breach international legal standards on acceptable collateral damage.

The former US officials Reuters spoke to did not provide details on what evidence, such as specific wartime incidents, had caused concerns among Israel's military lawyers.

Reuters spoke to nine former US officials in then-president Joe Biden's administration, including six who had direct knowledge of the intelligence and the subsequent debate within the US government. All spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Reports of internal US government dissent over Israel's Gaza campaign emerged during Biden's presidency. This account, based on detailed recollections from those involved, offers a fuller picture of the debate's intensity in the administration's final weeks, which ended with President Donald Trump's inauguration in January.

Israeli Ambassador to the US, Yechiel Leiter, declined to comment when asked for a response about the US intelligence and the internal Biden administration debate about it.

Neither the Israeli prime minister's office nor the Israeli military spokesperson immediately responded to requests for comment.

The intelligence prompted an interagency meeting at the National Security Council (NSC), where officials and lawyers debated how and whether to respond to the new findings.

A US finding that Israel was committing war crimes would have required, under US law, blocking future arms shipments and ending intelligence sharing with Israel.

Israel's intelligence services have worked closely with the US for decades and provide critical information, in particular, about events occurring in the Middle East.

Biden administration conversations in December included officials from across the government, including the State Department, the Pentagon, the intelligence community and the White House. Biden was also briefed on the matter by his national security advisers.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

"We do not comment on intelligence matters," a State Department spokesperson said in response to emailed questions about Reuters reporting.

The American debate about whether the Israelis had committed war crimes in Gaza ended when lawyers from across the US government determined that it was still legal for the US to continue supporting Israel with weapons and intelligence because the US had not gathered its own evidence that Israel was violating the law of armed conflict, according to three former US officials.

They reasoned that the intelligence and evidence gathered by the US itself did not prove the Israelis had intentionally killed civilians and humanitarians or blocked aid, a key factor in legal liability.