Several key architects of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq 21 years ago are presenting a plan for rebuilding and “de-radicalizing” the surviving population of Gaza, while ensuring that Israel retains “freedom of action” to continue operations against Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The plan, which was published as a report Thursday by the hard-line neo-conservative Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, or JINSA, and the Vandenberg Coalition, is calling for the creation of a private entity, the “International Trust for Gaza Relief and Reconstruction” to be led by “a group of Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates” and “supported by the United States and other nations.”

With regard to Palestinian participation, the report by the “Gaza Futures Task Force,” envisages an advisory board “composed primarily of non-Hamas Gazans from Gaza, the West Bank, and diaspora.” In addition, the Palestinian Authority, which is based on the West Bank, “should be consulted in, and publicly bless,” the creation of the Trust while itself undergoing a process of “revamping.”

The Biden administration is supersizing the defense industry to meet foreign arms obligations instead of making tradeoffs essential to any effective budget. Its new National Defense Industrial Strategy lays out a plan to “catalyze generational change” of the defense industrial base and to “meet the strategic moment” — one rhetorically dominated by competition with China, but punctuated by U.S. support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia and Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

Instead of reevaluating its maximalist national security strategy, the Biden administration is doubling down. It is proposing a generation of investment to expand an arms industry that, overall, fails to meet cost, schedule, and performance standards. And if its strategy is any indication, the administration has no vision for how to eventually reduce U.S. military industrial capacity.

Today’s diplomatic complicity in the catastrophic human rights and humanitarian crisis in Gaza is the culmination of years of erosion of the international rule of law and global human rights system*. Such disintegration began in earnest after 9/11, when the United States embarked on its “war on terror,” a campaign that normalized the idea that everything is permissible in the pursuit of “terrorists.” To prosecute its war in Gaza, Israel borrows ethos, strategy, and tactics from that framework, doing so with the support of the United States.

It is as if the grave moral lessons of the Holocaust, of World War II, have been all but forgotten, and with them, the very core of the decades-old “Never Again” principle: its absolute universality, the notion that it protects us all or none of us. This disintegration, so apparent in the destruction of Gaza and the West’s response to it, signals the end of the rules-based order and the start of a new era.

The United States enters into more than two-hundred treaties each year on a range of international issues, including peace, defense, human rights, and the environment. Despite this seemingly impressive figure, the United States constantly fails to sign or ratify treaties the rest of the world supports. It has failed to ratify treaties that tackle biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions, protect the rights of children and women, and govern international waters. For a country frequently looked to as a global leader, the United States has consistently failed to step up in international partnerships. In fact, the United States has one of the worst records of any country in ratifying human rights and environmental treaties.

Why hasn’t the United States stepped up to the plate? According to scholars and policymakers, one major reason is the fear of treaties infringing on national sovereignty. The United States shuns treaties that appear to subordinate its governing authority to that of an international body like the United Nations. The United States consistently prioritizes its perceived national interests over international cooperation, opting not to ratify to protect the rights of U.S. businesses or safeguard the government’s freedom to act on national security. Politics also poses a significant barrier to ratification. While presidents can sign treaties, ratification requires the approval of two-thirds of the Senate. Oftentimes, the power of special interest groups and the desire of politicians to maintain party power, on top of existing concerns of sovereignty, almost assures U.S. opposition to treaty ratification.

The failure of the United States to lead on international treaty accession can have dangerous consequences. It can undermine the credibility of those treaties, weaken international partnerships, and raise concerns about the United States’ own commitments to matters such as human rights and environmental protection. By refusing to ratify treaties the rest of the world supports, the United States can lose other countries’ trust and gives up the influence of shaping the future direction of global rules. Furthermore, abstaining serves as a barrier to resolving critical global and regional issues, implicitly giving permission to other countries to free ride and follow the rule of law established by treaties only when it is in their best interest. Given these implications, I outline ten treaties the United States has not ratified and highlight arguments opponents cite for the lack of ratification. (...)