The Quiet Vote That Fed a War
The U.S. Senate rejected three proposed resolutions from Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont that would have blocked the sale of roughly $20 billion in arms to Israel. The failed votes marked a sharp rebuke of Sanders’s attempt to leverage congressional power against U.S. military aid to Israel amid a deepening humanitarian crisis.
Sanders’s Push Amid a Humanitarian Crisis
Roughly one year after Hamas launched attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, Sanders introduced three Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs) in late September. His goal: to halt U.S. arms transfers to Israel in light of mounting evidence that Gaza’s civilian population was facing a catastrophic hunger crisis. United Nations officials have warned that more than two million Palestinians were enduring “extremely critical” levels of hunger, raising fears of mass famine if aid could not reach them.
On the Senate floor, Sanders delivered an impassioned address urging colleagues not to turn a blind eye to human suffering. He warned that by supplying lethal aid, the U.S. risked complicity in what he called “mass starvation.” But despite his appeals, the Senate dealt a decisive defeat to his S.J. Res. 111, voting it down 18–79 on Wednesday night. Two companion resolutions met similar fates.
The Stakes of the Vote
Though Israel enjoys strong support in the Senate, Sanders’s measures were not purely symbolic. His proposals aimed to block U.S. deliveries of tank rounds, water rounds, and precision guidance kits—munitions he said were directly contributing to civilian casualties in Gaza. The total value of arms at issue: about $20 billion.
In a joint news conference ahead of the vote, Sanders stood with Senators Peter Welch, Chris Van Hollen, and Jeff Merkley, arguing that the United States was violating both the Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act. That is, he claimed the U.S. was enabling a foreign power’s human‑rights abuses while obstructing U.S. humanitarian aid to the same region.
“The U.S. government is in violation of its own laws,” Sanders declared. “Any senator who believes in the rule of law must support these resolutions.” He accused the U.S. of being complicit in war crimes by arming Israel without accountability.
The Council on Foreign Relations places total U.S. aid to Israel over recent decades at more than $310 billion—of which at least $228 billion is military support. The intensity of that relationship makes efforts like Sanders’s extremely controversial and politically risky.
Critique of U.S. Policy in Gaza
Sanders has long been critical of how the Biden administration has managed support for Israel during the war. He accuses the administration of lacking sufficient legal or moral safeguards, and of failing to hold Israel accountable when it appears to violate international norms.
He also argues that U.S. policy contradicts its humanitarian impulses. In a recent opinion piece, he noted that aid entering Gaza is now at its lowest levels since the war began, despite astronomical human need. He expressed outrage that both the weaponry and financial backing facilitating destruction have come from U.S. coffers.
“Much of the death and destruction in Gaza has been carried out with U.S. arms and paid for by American taxpayers,” Sanders wrote. “We must do something. And we must do it now.”
Political Realities and Limitations
Despite the moral force of his arguments, Sanders’s push collided with longstanding political realities. Opposition to cutting off arms to Israel remains widespread in both parties, particularly in the Senate, where national security and foreign policy debates tend to favor continuity over disruption.
Many Democrats, though uneasy about elements of Israel’s conduct in the war, declined to back Sanders’s resolutions. The Biden administration, for its part, has defended continued military support to Israel as essential to preserving regional stability and the U.S.–Israel alliance.
While the failed votes do not change policy, they signal that dissent exists even within the Democratic coalition. Sanders’s stand underscored a rift between progressive demands for restraint and establishment priorities on foreign policy.
What Comes Next
With the resolutions rejected, arms shipments will continue unless Congress or the administration intervenes through other legislation. The Justice Department or State Department could also condition future transfers on stricter safeguards—though no such moves have been announced.
Sanders and his allies may reintroduce new proposals or fight for stronger oversight in future appropriation bills. Meanwhile, public pressure and international scrutiny of humanitarian conditions in Gaza will likely intensify.
Still, the Senate’s vote demonstrates how deeply entrenched the U.S.–Israel military relationship is—even amid one of the gravest humanitarian emergencies in decades. For Sanders, the failure is setback. For critics, it’s vindication. But for millions of civilians in Gaza, the consequences remain far more immediate and dire.