Commentary

Chained by Aid: Washington’s Tariff on Lebanon’s Pursuit of Justice

The US has long leveraged its superpower status to give Israel impunity from international accountability

February 17, 2025

The US has long used its superpower status to shield Israel from accountability, blocking efforts to prosecute its officials for international law violations. This policy is evident in diplomatic manoeuvres, legislative measures, and direct interventions against judicial mechanisms. 

By reimposing sanctions on International Criminal Court (ICC) personnel, US President Donald Trump reinforced Washington’s opposition to the court—timed strategically with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit. This was not an isolated act but a clear signal that any attempt to hold Israeli officials accountable would face punitive measures. 

Many in Lebanon would like to see Israel accountable for its violations of international law during the recent armed conflict. Paramount among efforts to achieve this has been a push to have Lebanon accede to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to allow it to investigate these crimes and try those responsible.  

Lebanese leaders’ own anxiety about coming under the court’s jurisdiction helped derail a previous accession attempt last year. Even if this domestic impasse is overcome, however, another massive roadblock will loom: Washington. US military and humanitarian assistance has been critical for maintaining internal stability in Lebanon since the 2019 financial collapse. At the same time, Washington has a history of leveraging aid to influence policy, particularly when it comes to shielding its key ally, Israel. 

Against this backdrop, President Joseph Aoun’s inaugural promise to uphold the rule of law and protect Lebanese rights demands scrutiny. Can this commitment extend to pursuing justice for Israeli crimes on Lebanese soil, and at what cost? 

Washington’s Shield for Israeli Crimes 

The United States has for decades leveraged its position as a global superpower to clear the way for Israel to act with impunity and to avoid international accountability itself. This includes Washington vetoing 49 United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions regarding Israel since 1970. Washington has also worked to undermine international judicial mechanisms when it has seen them as working against its interests, with the ICC drawing particular ire since its creation in 2002.  

While the highest UN judicial body, the International Court of Justice, hears cases between states, the ICC was created independently from the UN to try individuals for the “most serious crimes of global concern,” including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The Rome Statute creating the ICC has today 125 signatory nations. 

Neither the US nor Israel are party to the statute, and since the court’s inception every US administration, whether Democratic and Republican, has sought to subvert it. For instance, in response to the ICC, President George W. Bush enacted the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASMP) in 2002. Informally dubbed the “The Hague Invasion Act,” among other clauses it authorized military action against the ICC if it attempted to prosecute US personnel or those of an “allied” country, such as Israel.  

The Obama administration openly opposed the Goldstone Report, the UN fact-finding mission on the 2008-09 Israeli assault on Gaza that accused both the Israeli army and Palestinian militant groups of war crimes. His administration then sought to block Palestine from gaining UN state recognition in 2012 – a necessary step for Palestine to join the Rome Statute three years later.  

President Donald Trump further entrenched US hostility towards the ICC by imposing sanctions on it in 2020 and threatening “any means necessary” against the court to protect US interests. President Joe Biden, while lifting some of Trump’s sanctions, offered Israel unfettered military and diplomatic support during the Gaza genocide and condemned the ICC prosecutor for issuing arrest warrants against Israel’s prime minister and defense minister last year. Indeed, the warrants spurred bipartisan outrage throughout Washington, epitomized by Republican Senator Tom Cotton, who called the ICC a “kangaroo court”, its prosecutor a “deranged fanatic”, and invoked The Hague Invasion Act to protect Israeli officials. 

In addition to attacking the ICC directly, Washington has also coerced other governments not to cooperate with the court to protect Israel.

Trump further entrenched this stance on his first day back in office this January, revoking Biden’s ICC sanctions reversal. He formalised this position on Thursday by reimposing economic and travel sanctions on ICC personnel, coinciding with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, underscoring the US-Israel alignment in resisting international legal scrutiny. These actions reinforce expectations that the new administration will be the most staunchly pro-Israel in recent history, signalling an even more aggressive approach to shielding Israel from accountability. 

In addition to attacking the ICC directly, Washington has also coerced other governments not to cooperate with the court to protect Israel. Last year, there was broad bipartisan support in the US Congress for an amendment that conditioned continued funding for the Palestinian Authority to it refraining from involvement in ICC investigations into Israeli actions. While this provision applies specifically to Palestine, it signals Washington’s broader red line.  

If Lebanon were to try to re-engage with the ICC, it would almost certainly risk severe aid reductions, particularly to the LAF, which relies heavily on US military assistance. Over the past 20 years, Lebanon has received nearly $6 billion in US aid, more than half of this going to Lebanon’s army and security services. Since Lebanon’s 2019 financial collapse, Washington has also provided crucial income support for LAF personnel, helping to keep the army standing as the government lost the fiscal capacity to do so. More recently, the outgoing Biden administration diverted $95 million in military aid allocated for Egypt to Lebanon. 

The US approach to foreign aid under the new administration further complicates Lebanon’s position. Under Trump, US policy explicitly ties foreign assistance to alignment with presidential foreign policy priorities. As US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, foreign aid should “be a tool that we use to advance the national interest.” The blunt-force nature with which the Trump administration is willing to wield this leverage is evident in its recent 90-day pause in all foreign aid – exempting only military financing for Israel and Egypt – which has sown chaos throughout operations and programs around the globe. 

Following the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire in November, Lebanese media revealed that the Biden administration exerted “great pressure” on the Lebanese government to retract a renewed bid for accession to the Rome Statute. Trump, surrounded by pro-Israel hawks in his administration, would no doubt seek to strongarm the Lebanese government even more forcefully away from any renewed effort at ICC participation.    

How Washington, Israel, and Hezbollah Align on Impunity 

Given Lebanon’s fragile economic and political reality, foreign aid has become increasingly critical to maintaining internal stability. The fragile ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel also relies heavily on the LAF securing the south following Hezbollah’s withdrawal. However, should Lebanon lose US funding, the LAF’s military capacity would be significantly threatened and likely jeopardize the ceasefire.  

If President Joseph Aoun is to follow through on his commitment to a “new era” of the rule of law, and if the Prime Minister-designate, Nawaf Salam - former president of the International Court of Justice - is to lead a government that truly prioritises justice, both must take a stand for Lebanon’s right to seek accountability.

Ironically, one of the few points of agreement between Washington, Israel and Hezbollah is that Lebanon should not join the ICC. Indeed, while the Biden administration applied external pressure against Lebanon’s ICC accession efforts last spring, Hezbollah also sought to undermine them from within the Lebanese government. In an unusual convergence of priorities, these parties aligned and mutually maintained their impunity from international justice.  

Yet, if President Joseph Aoun is to follow through on his commitment to a “new era” of the rule of law, and if the Prime Minister-designate, Nawaf Salam – former president of the International Court of Justice – is to lead a government that truly prioritises justice, both must take a stand for Lebanon’s right to seek accountability. Upholding international law is not only a legal obligation but also a fundamental assertion of Lebanon’s sovereignty.  

Should Lebanon pursue accountability through the ICC, it risks severe economic and military repercussions, which could destabilise the country and lead to renewed war with Israel. Is that a risk any leader could take for the sake of sovereignty and justice? Conversely, if it refrains from legal action, it reinforces the precedent that justice has a price, and that Lebanese sovereignty is for sale. It is a pivotal decision that will shape its diplomatic, economic, and security landscape for years to come. 

This commentary was originally published in The New Arab.

Accountability Governance Justice

Related