Senate Rejects Proposals to Halt U.S. Arms Sales to Israel Amid Ongoing Conflict

In a recent Senate session, lawmakers voted down three proposals introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont that aimed to block the sale of U.S. weapons to Israel. The proposed resolutions, known as Joint Resolutions of Disapproval, sought to prevent the transfer of approximately $20 billion worth of military equipment.

The resolutions were brought forward in response to the continued conflict between Israel and Hamas, particularly following the October 7, 2023, attack in which Hamas launched a large-scale assault on Israel. In the aftermath, Israel initiated an extensive ground and air campaign in Gaza. Humanitarian organizations, including the United Nations, have reported widespread civilian casualties and raised alarms about worsening conditions for Gaza residents.

According to various humanitarian sources, including Gaza’s Health Ministry, tens of thousands of people have lost their lives since the fighting intensified. The humanitarian toll has drawn international concern, with warnings that over 2 million people in Gaza are at risk of famine due to ongoing restrictions on aid and basic supplies.

During a speech on the Senate floor, Senator Sanders made a final appeal to his colleagues, emphasizing the humanitarian consequences of continuing military support without conditions. He argued that the United States should reevaluate its role and responsibilities in the conflict, particularly when aid and weapons could contribute to civilian suffering.

Despite these appeals, the Senate rejected all three resolutions by wide margins. The most prominent of the three, S.J. Res. 111, was voted down 18 to 79. While the outcome was expected given long-standing bipartisan support for Israel in Congress, the votes reflect a growing division within the Democratic Party and a shift in how some lawmakers view U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts.

At a news conference held prior to the vote, Sanders was joined by Senators Peter Welch, Chris Van Hollen, and Jeff Merkley. Together, they outlined their concerns about the sale of specific weapon systems, including tank shells and precision-guided munitions. Sanders and his colleagues argued that such weapons could contribute to further harm in civilian areas.

“The United States must ensure that our foreign assistance complies with both domestic and international law,” Sanders said. He pointed to the Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act, which prohibit military aid to countries found to be violating human rights or impeding humanitarian assistance.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. has provided Israel with more than $310 billion in economic and military support since the country’s founding, including roughly $228 billion in defense aid. The long-standing partnership is rooted in strategic, political, and historical ties.

Sanders emphasized that his resolutions were not aimed at severing relations with Israel, but rather at ensuring greater accountability in how U.S. assistance is used. He expressed concern that continuing arms transfers without oversight could undermine American credibility and contribute to escalating humanitarian crises.

Israel has stated that it remains committed to allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza and has cooperated with international efforts to distribute food, medicine, and supplies. However, several international organizations have reported ongoing challenges in delivering assistance due to security and logistical issues.

In a recent opinion piece published in the Washington Post, Sanders reiterated his position, writing, “The need for aid is greater than ever, yet the amount of humanitarian assistance reaching Gaza has declined significantly.” He called for a more measured approach from the U.S., urging leaders to consider both the strategic and moral implications of continued military support.

The Biden administration has maintained its position that Israel has a right to defend itself, while also emphasizing the importance of minimizing harm to civilians. U.S. officials have also pledged to work with partners in the region to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

Although the resolutions failed, the debate highlights an evolving conversation in Washington about the role of U.S. foreign policy, particularly in conflicts involving close allies. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed a desire to ensure that American aid is aligned with national values and global responsibilities.

As the situation in Gaza remains tense and the humanitarian outlook remains dire, further discussions about oversight and conditions on U.S. aid are likely to continue in the months ahead. Whether through legislation or diplomatic engagement, many lawmakers agree that transparency and accountability should be a part of America’s approach to international assistance.