In a move that once again highlights the deeply entrenched divide in U.S. foreign policy, the Senate recently voted down three resolutions put forward by independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. These resolutions sought to block a $20 billion arms deal with Israel, raising important questions about the future of U.S. support for the Israeli military. While the outcome was expected given the Senate’s long-standing bipartisan backing of Israel, the votes shed light on the growing tensions within the Democratic Party and broader political implications surrounding the U.S.’s role in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The debate over the arms sale comes in the aftermath of the violent escalation in Gaza, following Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel in October 2023. As the conflict rages on, a widening rift in U.S. politics appears to be forming, one that questions the current trajectory of American military aid to Israel and its humanitarian consequences for the Palestinian population. Sanders, a staunch advocate for human rights, argued that the U.S. must reassess its role in the Middle East—particularly its arms transfers to Israel, which he claims are exacerbating the suffering of civilians in Gaza. But the Senate’s vote has demonstrated that this view does not yet have broad enough support, leaving many wondering about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy in the region.
A Call for Accountability and Humanitarian Considerations
Senator Sanders’ stance has been a strong one, motivated by growing concerns over the humanitarian toll of the ongoing conflict. In late September 2023, Sanders introduced three Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs) aimed at halting the sale of military aid to Israel, which included not only traditional weapons like tank rounds but also critical military equipment such as guidance kits for airstrikes. This move was catalyzed by a grim report from the Gaza Health Ministry, which indicated that Israel’s air and ground strikes had led to the deaths of over 43,000 Palestinians, with millions more facing extreme hunger and deprivation. The United Nations warned of a potential famine that could affect more than 2 million people.
In a passionate address to the Senate, Sanders argued that U.S. military aid to Israel was compounding the devastation in Gaza. His concerns were not just about the numbers but about the dire conditions civilians were enduring. “We cannot continue to ignore the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding before our eyes,” Sanders said, emphasizing that the American government had a responsibility to ensure that its support for Israel did not come at the expense of innocent lives. For Sanders, the core issue was the potential violation of international law by Israel, which he accused of disproportionate use of force and a disregard for human rights.
Despite his impassioned plea, Sanders’ efforts were overwhelmingly rejected. The resolution S.J. Res. 111, which would have blocked the sale of weapons, was voted down by an 18-79 margin in the Senate. The scale of the defeat was no surprise to many, considering the Senate’s long history of supporting Israel, but the vote highlighted the growing divide among Democrats over President Biden’s position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Divisions Within the Democratic Party
The growing fracture within the Democratic Party over the Israel issue is not new. While President Biden has firmly supported Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas and other militant threats, a vocal and increasingly influential faction within the party has been pushing for more scrutiny of Israel’s military actions. Progressive Democrats, including Sanders, have been at the forefront of this challenge, calling for a more balanced U.S. approach that holds Israel accountable for its actions in Gaza.
At the heart of the debate is the question of accountability. Sanders and other progressive lawmakers have voiced frustration with what they see as the Biden administration’s lack of action when it comes to enforcing human rights standards in the region. Sanders, in particular, has been critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies, especially the ongoing blockade on Gaza and the use of military force in densely populated civilian areas. The calls for a reevaluation of U.S. arms transfers to Israel are not just about limiting military aid; they are about redefining America’s role in the Middle East and ensuring that U.S. support for Israel aligns with broader human rights goals.
“I am not saying that Israel has no right to defend itself,” Sanders clarified in his remarks, “but it is vital that we act in a way that respects international law and the lives of innocent civilians.” He has also called for greater scrutiny of Israel’s military tactics and more direct engagement in peace efforts to address the underlying causes of the conflict. Sanders’ critique has echoed broader concerns within progressive circles, where there is growing skepticism about whether U.S. support for Israel is ultimately hindering peace and contributing to a cycle of violence in the region.
The Biden Administration’s Response
In contrast to the progressive wing of his party, President Biden has remained steadfast in his support for Israel. The Biden administration has emphasized that U.S. military aid is crucial for Israel’s security, particularly in the face of threats from Hamas and Hezbollah. Biden has also stressed that American military support comes with an expectation that Israel will adhere to international humanitarian norms. However, critics argue that these expectations are rarely enforced and that U.S. aid continues to flow without significant checks on Israel’s military actions.
The White House’s defense of Israel’s actions comes amid growing calls from human rights organizations for the U.S. to reconsider its support for the Israeli military. The U.S. has long been a key ally of Israel, providing billions in military aid and political backing. For some, this relationship is seen as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. But as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepens, more lawmakers are questioning whether this long-standing support is still tenable in its current form.
Republican Support for the Arms Sale
On the other side of the political aisle, Republicans have largely supported the arms sale to Israel, stressing the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship and the strategic value of supporting Israel’s security needs. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in particular, has been vocal in dismissing Sanders’ resolutions, calling them “misguided” and arguing that halting military aid would send a dangerous message to Israel’s enemies in the region.
Republican lawmakers have consistently emphasized that Israel faces significant threats from groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militant organizations, and that the U.S. must continue to provide support to help Israel defend itself. They argue that weakening Israel’s military capabilities would embolden these groups and undermine regional stability. For many Republicans, support for Israel is seen as a key element of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and any move to reduce that support is viewed as detrimental to both Israel’s security and America’s strategic interests in the region.
The Broader Political Implications
While Sanders’ resolutions were defeated, the debate surrounding them signals a shift in U.S. politics. More and more Democrats are expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo and calling for a reevaluation of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. As the conflict continues and the humanitarian situation worsens, the political landscape in the U.S. may continue to shift. Advocacy groups and humanitarian organizations have praised Sanders for raising the issue of arms sales to Israel, even if the resolutions failed to pass.
“This vote may not have gone in our favor, but it shows that there is a growing demand for accountability,” said Sarah Johnson, spokesperson for Human Rights Watch. “The U.S. cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the suffering of the Palestinian people.”
For now, Israel’s military support from the U.S. remains intact, and the political establishment in Washington appears committed to maintaining the status quo. However, with increasing divisions within the Democratic Party and growing public scrutiny over the U.S.’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is possible that future policy changes may be on the horizon.
As the debate continues, one thing is clear: U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is at a crossroads, and how it evolves will likely have far-reaching consequences not only for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but for America’s standing on the global stage. The question now is whether the pressure from progressive lawmakers and humanitarian organizations will lead to meaningful change in the U.S.’s approach to Israel, or if the bipartisan support for Israel’s security will continue to hold firm.
