The U.S. Senate recently cast aside legislation proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders, rejecting the motion with a decisive 79-18 vote. This bill aimed to halt the sale of specific arms to Israel amid heightened scrutiny over its military actions against Iranian-backed groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Vermont's Sanders, known for his progressive stance and as one of the few left-leaning voices among the Senate —143 — expressed grave concerns about Israel's military operations and their impact on Palestinian civilians, particularly following the devastating casualties reported since the war erupted after the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks.
After these attacks, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 Israelis, Sanders acknowledged Israel's right to defend itself. Yet, he argued vehemently against what he termed as disproportionate retaliatory strikes. He cited alarming statistics from the Hamas-controlled Health Ministry, alleging over 43,000 Palestinian casualties and more than 100,000 injuries, many among vulnerable populations including women and children. “It did not have the right to destroy Gaza’s infrastructure, healthcare system, and schools and universities, and it certainly does not have the right to starve thousands and thousands of children in Gaza,” Sanders asserted.
Despite Sanders’ emphasis on humanitarian concerns, his reasoning has not gone unchallenged. Critics pointed out Hamas’ strategy of embedding its operations within civilian areas, which complicates the narrative surrounding civilian casualties and accountability. Prominent statistics expert Professor Abraham Wyner of UPenn mentioned the likelihood of Hamas misrepresenting civilian casualties for propaganda purposes, emphasizing the need for accurate discourse surrounding such sensitive topics.
The rejected resolution intended to suspend the shipment of over 32,000 120mm tank shells and other munitions, which Israel could deploy against its adversaries. Notably, the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer publicly opposed the bill, underlining the historical commitment to support Israel. He stressed, “Israel needs to protect itself not just today, but also tomorrow and next year and beyond.” Similarly, other Senate leaders echoed concerns about the timing and potential geopolitical ramifications of blocking arms sales to Israel, especially with growing tensions involving Iran and Hezbollah.
The overwhelming Senate majority against the bill showcased a defining moment of unity among the majority of lawmakers who typically support Israel. But the 18 votes advocating for Sanders' resolution illustrated some fissures within the Democratic Party. Prominent Democrats like Dick Durbin, Tim Kaine, Elizabeth Warren, and others who voted for the resolution have signaled their increasing discontent with Israel’s heavy-handed military strategies.
Rick Scott, a Republican senator from Florida, expressed alarm at the number of Democrats who supported Sanders, stating, “Look at their actions! 35% of Senate Democrats just voted to stop an arms sale to Israel.” Scott seemed to hint at the rising voices within his party chastised Democrats for what he described as growing tendencies to abandon Israel.
This perceived shift among progressive Democrats is echoing broader criticisms of President Biden’s foreign policy posture. Democratic lawmakers have been increasingly vocal against what they see as insufficient efforts by the Biden administration to pressure Israel to modify its military strategies and conditions for humanitarian access to Gaza.
Add to this the backdrop of deteriorATING conditions faced by Gaza's civilian population, who are caught between the conflict's brutal crossfire and Israeli responses described as lacking sensitivity.
Faced with what some describe as “mass starvation” among children, leading humanitarian organizations have expressed dismay at Israel’s failure to meet U.S. demands to improve aid delivery to residents, which reportedly worsened just as the U.S. deadline approached earlier this month.
Specific calls have emerged among some Senate Democrats for improved conditions attached to U.S. arms shipments to Israel. They urge Congress to enact legislation reflecting these concerns more substantially. “We would expect there to be some consequences when things get even worse,” asserted Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, one of the original sponsors of the resolution. Progressive Democrat Jeff Merkley from Oregon joined the fray, echoing similar sentiments of accountability.
Despite all this, the Biden administration has continued to provide military support to Israel at historically high levels — around $18 billion — with no weakening resolve. Senator Ben Cardin, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, shared news from the White House urging lawmakers to defeat the Sanders-backed resolution. Cardin took the voice of the executive branch seriously, alluding to the precariousness of Middle East peace negotiations affected by changes to arms sales dynamics.
The debate over military aid and arms sales to Israel reflects underlying tensions not only within the Senate but also across the U.S. political spectrum. With Republican control looming on the horizon and Trump’s commitment to bolstering Israel’s military position echoing for the next administration, future discussions remain uncertain. Trump has previously remarked on Israel's military situation, calling for swift action to conclude hostilities, though details from his prospective policies are still vague.
The rift within party lines displayed through this vote serves as both a window and warning for what may be to come as diverse opinions on foreign policy continue to expand within the Democratic Party. Sanders remains unwavering, reiterally the U.S.'s moral imperative to adjust arms policies, calling the current support framework undermining of U.S. integrity on the global stage: “Other governments will say to Americans, ‘Don’t give us advice, don’t criticize us, when you have supported the mass starvation of children with your tax dollars.’”
Looking down the line, as U.S. domestic politics wade through upcoming elections, foreign policy discourse will likely undergo significant scrutiny and challengers will increasingly focus on the dimensions of humanitarian concerns against strategic military alliances. The complex interplay between ensuring Israel’s security, addressing humanitarian rights of Palestinians, and shaping U.S. foreign policy initiative may see heated discussions and increased scrutiny as tensions within the region continue to mount.
