Calling a country an “ally” should not make human rights optional.

Our tax dollars help fund billions in annual military aid to Israel.

Now, Section 219 of the House-passed H.R. 8800 proposes deeper U.S.–Israel defense-technology cooperation, including joint development and production. It is not a literal full merger of the two militaries, but it would much more deeply intertwine our defense sectors.

Why are we strengthening that relationship without demanding accountability for conduct that contradicts the principles our government claims to defend?

The UN has documented Israeli forces taking over Palestinian families’ homes in the West Bank. “They’re our ally” does not explain why we should excuse something we would find intolerable happening to our own families.

This is about consistency, not pretending the U.S. Constitution governs another country.

And the concerns are not only overseas.

ACLU lawsuits describe U.S. citizens being detained by ICE and challenge a policy allowing agents to forcibly enter homes using agency-issued paperwork instead of a judge’s warrant.

We also have documented book bans and government information removed from public websites, some restored only after court intervention.

Meanwhile, ICE has expanded its surveillance tools, including facial recognition, phone-data extraction and location tracking.

These are different issues with different legal questions, but each deserves scrutiny, not a shrug.

The slippery slope I’m worried about is normalization.

Not that one bill automatically abolishes the Constitution, but that we become comfortable with abuses of power as long as they happen to people we have decided do not count. If we applaud an ally denying other people basic protections, how confidently can we expect those same principles to protect us when our own government wants an exception?

If any civilians are considered less deserving because of their skin color, nationality or religion, what commitment to equal human dignity are we actually defending?

Their rights matter in their own right, not only because violating them might eventually affect Americans.

That standard applies to everyone, including Americans with Israeli dual citizenship. Nobody should demand freedom and protection from government abuse here while excusing the denial of basic human rights overseas. The issue is not having two passports. It is having two moral standards depending on which one you’re holding.

What did the ocean between here and there change about human rights?

Nothing. Geography is not a moral exemption.

~~~~~~~~