deepen

Late on Friday night, Donald Trump announced what he called “the biggest oil deal in world history.” Under the terms described publicly so far, the US would obtain a controlling interest in a new venture involving 17 Venezuelan oil fields containing more than 65 billion barrels of proven reserves, with an effective 55 percent share of production and preferential access to crude at cost. The Trump administration says the arrangement could mobilize around $100 billion in private investment and eventually generate more than $200 billion in Venezuelan tax revenues. Much about the deal, including its precise legal structure, remains unclear.

There is nothing inherently objectionable about American companies making money from Venezuelan oil. Venezuela desperately needs foreign capital, technology and markets. PDVSA cannot rebuild the industry on its own, and reconnecting Venezuela to the American energy system would be preferable to another generation of dependence on Russia, China or Iran. 

The problem is not that Washington wants investment. The problem is that it seems determined to make that investment possible without first solving the political and institutional problem that made Venezuela uninvestable in the first place.

Recalculating

The original expectation after Nicolás Maduro’s removal seemed straightforward enough. American oil majors would pour tens of billions of dollars into the country and restore production. Nine days after Maduro was captured, Trump gathered oil executives at the White House and invited them back to Venezuela. ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods responded with an inconvenient assessment: under the existing legal and commercial conditions, the country remained “uninvestable.” ConocoPhillips was interested but similarly cautious. Chevron, which never fully left, has continued expanding and is now preparing another significant restructuring of its Venezuelan operations. So far, the broad stampede of supermajors Washington appeared to expect has not come.

So Washington widened the search. Delcy Rodríguez traveled to India in June to court energy investment and deepen ties with Reliance and other Indian companies, in a trip conducted with remarkably explicit American encouragement. India had once again become a major buyer of Venezuelan crude, and Asian capital offered another potential source of the money Venezuela needed.

Under the conditions we have been apprised of so far, it is difficult to imagine a future democratic Venezuelan government simply accepting an arrangement of this magnitude as a fait accompli.

At the same time came operators with a different tolerance for Venezuelan risk. Hunt Overseas Oil and Crossover Energy signed preliminary agreements to develop projects in the Orinoco Belt. Smaller American firms have explored opportunities that Exxon and Conoco have so far declined to pursue. SLB, an oilfield-services company rather than a producer, has now been brought in to reconstruct and analyze PDVSA’s degraded reservoir data, the sort of basic technical infrastructure that should tell us something about how much of an oil industry still needs to be rebuilt.

And then there are the intermediaries. Bloomberg recently reported that Alejandro Betancourt, who rose spectacularly during the Chávez years, emerged as an important facilitator for Washington’s effort to bring smaller American companies into Venezuela. His usefulness is not difficult to understand. Companies entering a market where formal institutions remain weak need people who know the terrain, the networks, the officials and the informal rules through which business actually gets done. 

Betancourt has denied past allegations of wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime, but his return as an influential gatekeeper hardly advertises the arrival of a transparent, rules-based Venezuelan economy.

Now comes the ultimate recalculation. If investors are still reluctant to absorb Venezuelan political risk, the US government may absorb some of it itself.

Risk instead of certainty

That is what makes Friday’s announcement so revealing. Washington began the year with the proposition that political change would make Venezuela attractive to capital. Now, the Trump government appears increasingly willing to create more and more elaborate mechanisms to insulate investors from risk rather than address the conditions that make the country risky in the first place. At every stage, it has changed the investor, the financing, the intermediary or the allocation of risk. The one variable it has been remarkably reluctant to change is the Venezuelan government.

There is also the small matter of Venezuelan law.

The Constitution establishes that hydrocarbon deposits belong to the Republic and are inalienable. It also requires National Assembly approval for public-interest contracts involving foreign states, foreign official entities, or companies not domiciled in Venezuela. Delcy’s reform of the hydrocarbons law has undeniably widened the space for private operators, granting companies much greater control over production and commercialization. But nothing disclosed so far explains how an arrangement giving the US government a controlling economic position over 17 fields, reportedly with rights potentially stretching for a quarter of a century, has obtained the constitutional authorization necessary to bind Venezuela over anything resembling that period. Reuters itself notes that the legal and financial structure remains unclear and that the proposal faces constitutional questions.

Delcy’s strategy is to survive Trump himself, so that the next American administration treats her as the person guaranteeing oil production, investment contracts and political stability.

Perhaps those questions will eventually receive convincing answers. Perhaps the current National Assembly will be asked to provide whatever approvals the agreement requires. But under the conditions we have been apprised of so far, it is difficult to imagine a future democratic Venezuelan government simply accepting an arrangement of this magnitude as a fait accompli. At a minimum, it would have every reason to subject the contracts to comprehensive legal review and democratic ratification; significant portions could well have to be renegotiated.

That produces a remarkable contradiction. An agreement supposedly designed to provide investors with certainty may create its own enormous source of political risk. 

A future government could inherit century-long commitments negotiated by an unelected predecessor whose authority it contests, with the US itself financially invested in preserving those commitments. Venezuela’s first genuinely democratic administration would then begin its life choosing between endorsing decisions it never authorized or entering an immediate dispute with Washington.

There is a perfectly respectable argument for what the Trump administration is attempting. Venezuela cannot place reconstruction on hold indefinitely while it builds pristine institutions. Oil infrastructure continues to deteriorate. Investment can create jobs, revenue, and constituencies interested in stability. Delcy controls the ministries, PDVSA, much of the security apparatus and the bureaucracy; somebody has to sign the contracts today. Connecting Venezuelan economic interests to American companies could itself help pull the country away from the geopolitical networks that sustained Maduro.

But that argument confuses the need to restart the economy with the need to give an interim government the power to determine its structure for generations.

Washington could have pursued investment while limiting the duration of interim arrangements, requiring future democratic ratification for the largest commitments, creating sunset clauses, tying concessions to institutional milestones or ensuring that Venezuela’s democratic forces had genuine ownership of the framework. Democratic legitimacy is not an obstacle to investment certainty. Properly understood, it is one of its foundations.

The US seems unwilling to own the fact that no amount of financial engineering, political brokerage or well-connected intermediaries can substitute for a democratic government.

Instead, the emerging arrangement gives Delcy Rodríguez an increasingly powerful incentive to make herself indispensable. The more American capital, energy security and political prestige become attached to agreements signed under her government, the more valuable continuity becomes. Delcy’s obvious strategy is no longer merely to survive the transition. It is to survive Trump himself, so that the next American administration treats her not as the temporary caretaker Washington inherited in January but as the person guaranteeing oil production, investment contracts and political stability.

Unreliable partners

There have been meaningful changes since Maduro’s removal. More than a thousand political prisoners have reportedly been released. The government and representatives of the opposition have reached an agreement to renew the Supreme Court. But if the objective on January 3 was a genuine democratic transition, it is increasingly difficult to argue that Venezuela has moved very far from square one. Delcy still governs without democratic legitimacy. Much of the chavista State remains intact. María Corina Machado remains outside the country and outside the US-backed negotiating mechanism. Even senators from both parties in Washington have begun pressing the administration for a clearer path toward elections.

If anyone in Washington believes that another legally dubious agreement negotiated with the cronies who continue to usurp the Venezuelan State—particularly through figures like Alejandro Betancourt, now being mentioned as a facilitator for oil investment—will inspire substantially more confidence than anything Washington has tried since that glorious January 3 night, then they have learned remarkably little about the problem they inherited. Washington took responsibility for managing Venezuela’s transition that night. Eight months later, it still seems unwilling to own the central fact that no amount of financial engineering, political brokerage or well-connected intermediaries can substitute for a Venezuelan government with democratic and legal legitimacy.

There is a broader cost to that refusal. Machado is not merely another Venezuelan politician Washington happens to dislike. She is one of Latin America’s most recognizable democratic figures, with an audience extending across the region’s Right, democratic center and beyond. The administration’s repeated willingness to sideline her while embracing Rodríguez is therefore being watched outside Venezuela too.

If billions begin flowing through institutions and business networks that have never been subjected to democratic accountability, Washington may discover that it has helped recapitalize the very system it intended to replace.

It is particularly telling to see rightwing figures such as Emmanuel Rincón, Orlando Avendaño and Hermann Tertsch—voices that have spent much of the past eight months looking for the glass-half-full interpretation of Washington’s most questionable decisions—struggling to interpret the latest developments as anything other than the US installing a friendlier face atop the chavista state.

That matters for American power. The Trump administration has never pretended that its diplomacy would be delicate. Allies understand pressure, bargaining and the occasional arm-twist. But there is a difference between being a demanding partner and being an unreliable one. Latin American political leaders who have aligned themselves with Washington against authoritarian movements would be perfectly rational to study Venezuela and conclude that the US remains an excellent partner for a business transaction while being considerably less dependable as the guarantor of a political project.

Oil production can rise without democracy. Private investment can coexist with authoritarianism. Venezuela can become much more capitalist without becoming substantially more free. If billions begin flowing through institutions and business networks that have never been subjected to democratic accountability, Washington may discover that it has helped recapitalize the very system it intended to replace.

Chavismo spent a quarter century destroying the institutional ecosystem in which long-term investment could survive. Changing an oil law does not rebuild it. Removing Maduro did not rebuild it. Finding more adventurous investors will not rebuild it either.

Democratic legitimacy is not the prize Venezuela receives at the end of a successful transition. It is part of the infrastructure required for the transition to succeed.

A $1.15 trillion US defence bill passed by the House includes plans to expand military cooperation with Israel through joint work on missile defence, drones and AI. Critics warn the move could deepen ties amid growing political divisions over aid to Israel.

Ali al-Zaidi will hold talks with senior Iranian officials on bilateral cooperation, shared interests and security.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi is in Iran on his first official visit since assuming office in May.

The Iraqi News Agency (INA) on Thursday said al-Zaidi and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian oversaw the signing of several agreements and memoranda of understanding (MoUs) pertaining to foreign affairs, finance, the economy and energy in Tehran.

Speaking at a joint meeting of senior Iranian and Iraqi delegations in Tehran, al-Zaidi thanked Iran for helping Iraq in its fight against the ISIL (ISIS) group, and reaffirmed his country’s commitment to security cooperation with Tehran, saying that Iraq would not accept hostile action against Iran by any party.

“Iraq will never forget Iran’s support in the fight against the [ISIL/ISIL] terrorist group,” he said, according to Pezeshkian’s office.

Pezeshkian said a comprehensive strategic cooperation plan would serve as a roadmap for expanding relations between Tehran and Baghdad, stressing that the security of the two neighbouring countries was closely linked.

Over the course of the two-day visit, al-Zaidi will hold talks with other senior Iranian officials on bilateral cooperation, shared interests and regional security, he said on X.

“We will meet with senior officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran to discuss issues of mutual interest, bilateral cooperation, regional developments, and ongoing efforts to consolidate security and stability across the region,” he said.

“Iraq and Iran are bound by historic and civilizational ties, shared borders, and common interests. These enduring bonds call for continued engagement in a spirit of dialogue, cooperation, and mutual respect in a manner that promotes sustainable development and prosperity for the peoples of both countries, while contributing to security and stability at the regional and international levels.”

Iraq remains heavily reliant on Iranian natural gas and electricity, while bilateral trade exceeds $12bn annually, making it one of Iran’s largest trading partners.

A deep religious bond also exists between the two countries, as millions of Iranian Shia pilgrims cross the border to visit Iraq’s holy sites every year. During the week-long funeral held for Iran’s slain Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei earlier this month, the procession travelled through the Iraqi Shia pilgrimage cities of Najaf and Karbala.

The Iranian government has also cultivated close ties with influential Shia parties and armed groups in Iraq that form the backbone of Iraq’s security forces.

Political analyst Ghaleb Al-Daami told Al Jazeera that al-Zaidi’s visit came as Baghdad tries the difficult task of maintaining relations with both the warring parties, the United States and Iran.

Al-Daami said the main objectives of al-Zaidi’s visit were to tell Iran to stop its support for armed groups in Iraq and to deliver a message from the US, which has expressed support for Iraq acting as a mediator amid the US war on Iran.

A section of Sunset Boulevard remained closed on Sunday because of last week’s destructive water main break, with officials saying they didn’t know when repairs to the 110-year-old pipe would be completed or the street reopened.

“While there is no set completion date yet, our crews remain dedicated to finishing the repairs as quickly and safely as possible,” the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power said in a Sunday release.

Some West Hollywood residents remained displaced Sunday from apartments where underground garages were flooded by Thursday’s water main rupture. And some businesses near the scene remained indefinitely closed.

An aerial view of workers viewing a broken water main at Sunset Boulevard and Holloway Drive in West Hollywood that sent water gushing down many streets, closing several of them Thursday.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Vanessa Lopez, an LADWP spokeswoman, said that two other water pipe ruptures on Saturday — one in Venice and another in Hollywood — had been repaired.

The city received a report of yet another break on an 8-inch water main at 1501 Lincoln Blvd. on Sunday morning, she said, which crews were still working to repair.

Lopez said those breaks were not related to each other or to Thursday’s fracture of the far bigger pipe in West Hollywood, which was constructed in 1916.

Officials said Sunday that Sunset Boulevard remains closed between Sherbourne Drive and San Vicente Boulevard, with limited local access on nearby streets including Cynthia and San Vicente.

City officials urged the public to avoid the area.

LADWP said tap water in West Hollywood remains safe to drink, but officials encouraged residents to conserve.

With the 36-inch water transmission line undergoing repairs, West Hollywood is currently being served by an 8-inch distribution pipe. Residents may notice low water pressure, especially those living in upper-floor apartments, officials said.

Book Soup, a popular bookstore on Sunset Blvd, was one of the shops and restaurants forced to close after streets were flooded.

“For the safety of staff and the community, we’re keeping the store closed for the time being,” an employee said in a recording on its answering machine Sunday.

“We want to reassure everyone that the store is completely fine and our books are safe and dry,” she added.

Thursday’s fracture was on a steel pipe that forms the major arteries for water delivery from reservoirs and tanks to smaller distribution lines across Los Angeles. That section of the Sunset Trunk Line had been slated for replacement in 2031, according to the utility.

In 2019, LADWP said roughly 29% of the city’s pipes were over 80 years old, nearing their typical 100-year lifespan.

When the trunk line ruptured early Thursday morning, millions of gallons of water gushed down Holloway Drive, inundating businesses and flooding underground parking garages.

Repairs to a water main on Sunset Boulevard Saturday in West Hollywood.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

West Hollywood Mayor John Heilman estimated that between 150 and 200 cars were damaged or destroyed in the flood.

The leak was stopped after a few hours, leaving a giant sinkhole in the middle of Sunset Boulevard.

On Saturday, city crews replaced a 25-foot section of the line. Workers have refilled the pipe with water and are now working to repressurize it, officials said Sunday.

The workers must then disinfect the pipe with chlorine and test the water’s quality for safety. The hole in Sunset Blvd. will then be filled and the street repaired, officials said.

Residents and businesses who lost property and suffered damages can find information about filing claims at www.LADWP.com/Claims.

July 16 (Asia Today) — Divisions among Samsung Electronics labor unions are widening as unions representing different business units pursue separate compensation demands and bargaining strategies.

The Samsung Electronics Donghaeng Union, which primarily represents employees in the Device eXperience division, staged a rally Thursday demanding compensation equivalent to about 1,000 company shares per employee.

Meanwhile, the Samsung Electronics branch of the Samsung Group Super-Enterprise Union, whose membership is concentrated in the Device Solutions division, held its first policy committee meeting for the semiconductor business.

The divisions developed from a dispute over performance bonuses and have continued despite the conclusion of companywide wage negotiations.

The Donghaeng union held its rally near the main entrance of Samsung Electronics’ Suwon campus in Gyeonggi Province.

“We strongly condemn management for unilaterally excluding the DX division and reaching a closed-door agreement without transparency,” the union said.

More than 7,000 people were reported to have attended, more than twice the approximately 3,000 participants initially expected by organizers.

Participants wore black and carried signs reading “Same company, same rights,” “Rest in peace, DX” and “Discrimination off, fairness on.”

“Behind the company’s remarkable achievements are the dedication and hard work of DX employees,” the union said. “However, management created an extreme compensation gap between business divisions during the latest negotiations, leaving DX employees feeling excluded and relatively deprived.”

The union called on Samsung Electronics to immediately offer each DX employee compensation equivalent to about 1,000 company shares.

It also demanded that the company secure funding in advance for companywide employee compensation in 2027 and disclose the amount transparently.

The Donghaeng union said it would hold another rally in Seoul’s Seocho District unless the company takes additional action.

Lee Ho-seok, head of the Suwon branch of the National Samsung Electronics Union, attended Thursday’s rally and suggested his union could join forces with Donghaeng over what union leaders described as management’s exclusion of DX employees.

“To create one Samsung Electronics, rights, respect and compensation must be provided equally,” Lee said. “Management must answer our questions.”

The Super-Enterprise Union, meanwhile, held the kickoff meeting of its DS Division Policy Committee on Thursday.

The committee discussed its operating rules, plans for the 2027 wage and collective bargaining negotiations and its response to the company’s Mega Project initiative.

The union said the committee would meet monthly and hold regular consultations with management.

The union is also preparing to request separate bargaining units that would allow employees in the DS and DX divisions to negotiate independently with management.

Choi Seung-ho, chairman of the Super-Enterprise Union’s Samsung Electronics branch, said he intends to secure the change this year.

“The Super-Enterprise Union will responsibly lead the 2027 wage and collective bargaining negotiations rather than participate in joint negotiations,” Choi said. “With about four months remaining before negotiations begin in early December, we will use the policy committee to develop a thorough set of demands.”

The unions began moving separately after Samsung Electronics introduced a special performance bonus for the DS division in May.

As unions increasingly organized along business-unit lines, disputes among them intensified.

As of Thursday, the Super-Enterprise Union had 54,286 members, the Donghaeng union had 28,877 and the National Samsung Electronics Union had 22,826.

The Super-Enterprise Union previously represented a majority of Samsung Electronics’ unionized workforce. Its membership declined after large numbers of DX employees left, while membership in the Donghaeng union and the National Samsung Electronics Union increased.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260716010006332

A senior North Korean party official and China’s top political adviser have met in Pyongyang and discussed ways to strengthen bilateral exchanges and cooperation, the North’s state media said Thursday.

Jo Yong-won, a secretary of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea, and Wang Huning, chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), held talks Wednesday, according to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

Wang, China’s fourth-ranking official, is leading a Chinese party and government delegation on a three-day visit to North Korea through Friday to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the two countries.

During the talks, Jo said the rapidly changing international political situation “has required the two countries to further strengthen the militant unity, support and solidarity and steadily intensify and develop the friendly and cooperative relations” based on the spirit of the treaty.

Jo also said bilateral ties have entered a new stage of development under the leadership of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and Chinese President Xi Jinping, expressing Pyongyang’s willingness to expand strategic communication and cooperation across various sectors.

Wang said the friendship treaty has provided a legal foundation for consolidating the “militant friendship formed at the cost of blood” between the two countries.

He also reaffirmed China’s commitment to elevating bilateral ties to a higher level in line with the consensus reached by Xi and Kim during their summit in Pyongyang in June, according to the KCNA.

The two sides discussed ways to deepen party-to-party exchanges and expand cooperation in various fields, including the economy and culture, with the aim of promoting the well-being of their peoples, the report said.

Wang’s visit comes days after North Korean Premier Pak Thae-song traveled to China to attend events marking the treaty anniversary, where he met with Xi and other senior Chinese leaders.

The exchange of high-level delegations has highlighted increasingly active contacts between Pyongyang and Beijing as the two sides seek to reaffirm their traditionally close ties and deepen cooperation.

“We are closely monitoring the possibility of a meeting between Wang and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, as well as any follow-up cooperation that may emerge from the talks,” an official at Seoul’s unification ministry told reporters.

He added the government is also paying attention to the presence of officials involved in urban management at the talks, saying it could signal discussions on cooperation in the economic and urban development sectors.

The latest exchanges reflect efforts by Pyongyang and Beijing to strengthen strategic communication and party-to-party ties, though it remains to be seen whether the current pace of high-level exchanges will continue beyond events marking the treaty anniversary, the official said.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

The UN says it is scaling up its response after twin earthquakes devastated Venezuela, warning the disaster will deepen an already severe humanitarian crisis. Speaking to Al Jazeera, UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric said hundreds of UN staff are supporting the response, adding that recovery efforts are expected to continue for months.

A congressional panel in the United States has rejected an effort to revoke a provision from the defence budget that would further integrate the US and Israeli militaries.

An amendment to sink the pro-Israel measure, introduced by Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, failed in a voice call on Thursday in the House Armed Services Committee.

That defeat paves the way for the proposal to advance to the floor of the House of Representatives.

Khanna had argued that the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), formally called Section 224, rewards Benjamin Netanyahu at a time when the Israeli prime minister is trying to dictate US policy in the Middle East.

The progressive Democrat cited recent reports that President Donald Trump is angry at Netanyahu over Israel’s escalation in Lebanon.

“Everyone in America — whether you’re a Republican, an independent or a Democrat — says that we need to tell Netanyahu that America calls the shots, not the prime minister of any other country,” Khanna said.

“They want less cooperation and blank checks to Israel, not more. Only the United States Congress would dream up at this moment, ‘Let’s actually do more for Israel.’”

The vote on the amendment was taken by calling on committee members to say aloud either “yes” and “no”, and the “nays” clearly were more numerous. It was not recorded as a roll-call vote, which would require each member’s preference to be logged.

Section 224 would require the Pentagon chief “to designate an executive agent responsible for synchronising cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel”.

That official would be in charge of overseeing several joint initiatives, “including bilateral defence technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation”, the NDAA reads.

Netanyahu’s endorsement

Critics have raised concern that Section 224 may make US military aid to Israel more opaque, concealing the assistance as cooperation rather than a separate expense.

The measure also risks tethering the US military to its Israeli counterpart technologically at a time when the American public is rapidly turning against Israel, according to recent public opinion polls.

“As political pressure builds to reduce US military assistance to Israel, Section 224 provides the framework for continuing — and expanding — US-Israel military ties by entrenching Israeli technology within the US defense supply chain in a way that would shield it from the annual appropriations process,” the nonprofit lobbying group A New Policy said in a brief last week.

“The use of must-pass legislation as the NDAA as a mechanism of integration speaks to the plummeting popularity of continuing unconditional support to Israel.”

The measure comes as Netanyahu pushes to transform US aid to Israel from direct assistance to military “cooperation”.

The Israeli prime minister wrote a letter to Republican Congressman Marlin Stutzman endorsing a bill facilitating that transition.

In the letter, Netanyahu said, “The time has now arrived for us to move from aid recipient to partner.”

He added he supported Stutzman’s plan for a “new framework of joint defense cooperation, codevelopment, coproduction and mutual investment in areas including advanced missile defense, artificial intelligence … and next generation military platforms”.

Referencing the letter on Thursday, Khanna argued that Section 224 “directly” follows Netanyahu’s language.

“I am for Team America. I am for the interests of this country, and I believe that when Donald Trump ran, he ran ‘America First’,” the Democrat said.

“That includes American interests against any foreign country. We should have American sovereignty and make it clear that we strike 224. If we want to give aid to Israel, if we want to sell them weapons, that should be a vote for the entire Congress.”

But both Democrats and Republicans pushed back against his argument, saying that the provision aims to streamline existing cooperative programmes that benefit the US.

Key Democrat backs Section 224

Congressman Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the panel, said he was “very sympathetic” to Khanna’s frustration with Netanyahu.

“Mr Netanyahu insisted on this war with Iran that has strengthened Iran and weakened our position. I do not like his leadership of Israel or where he is going,” Smith said.

But he added that it is in the US’s interests to have deep military ties with Israel, a country accused by leading rights groups and United Nations investigators of committing genocide in Gaza.

“The reason that we have these partnerships with Israel, where we may not have as many developed partnerships with other NATO countries, is because Israel has actually been having to fight,” Smith said.

“They have faced drone attacks and missile attacks. They have had to develop new technologies, technologies that we’ve benefitted from.”

Rights advocates often decry the promotion of Israel’s weapons as “battle-tested” — because they have been tested on the Palestinian and Lebanese communities that they devastated, killing tens of thousands of people along the way.

Earlier on Thursday, Palestinian rights advocates warned against approving Section 224 during a news conference on Capitol Hill.

“It is unfathomable that this is the American response to a country that has, over the past two and a half years, carried out a genocide against Palestinians and started wars in both Iran and Lebanon,” said Margaret DeReus, the executive director at the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU).

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie has promised to introduce an amendment to revoke Section 224 when the NDAA goes to a full House vote.