In a historic vote, the U.S. Senate narrowly defeated three Joint Resolutions of Disapproval introduced by independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a move aimed at stopping the sale of approximately $20 billion in arms to Israel. The resolutions, proposed in late September—a full year after Hamas launched its October 7, 2023 attack on Israel—sought to curb U.S. military support amid a rapidly escalating humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

A Bold Legislative Effort Amid a Humanitarian Crisis

Senator Sanders’ proposals came at a time when the Gaza Health Ministry reported staggering casualties resulting from Israel’s military ground and air operations in Gaza, with some estimates placing the death toll at over 43,000. These military actions, which followed the Hamas attack, have inflicted widespread destruction across Gaza. United Nations officials have warned that the region faces an impending famine, as more than 2 million Palestinians endure “extremely critical” levels of hunger.

In a passionate floor speech on the Senate, Sanders urged his colleagues not to ignore the unfolding humanitarian disaster. He warned that U.S. support for the sale of advanced weaponry to Israel could be indirectly fueling a situation of “mass starvation” and further destabilizing the region. “The United States is complicit in these crimes,” he declared, calling on senators to take a stand against policies that, in his view, contribute to international law violations.

The Vote: A Resounding ‘No’

Despite Sanders’ impassioned plea, his S.J. Res. 111—and the two companion resolutions—failed to gain traction in the Senate, ultimately falling by a vote of 18 to 79. With strong pro-Israel support entrenched in the upper chamber, the resolutions were never expected to pass. However, the vote has significant symbolic value, highlighting a rare moment of internal dissent within Democratic ranks regarding President Joe Biden’s handling of the ongoing conflict.

Critics of the Biden administration’s approach argue that it has not done enough to hold Israel accountable for its military actions. Sanders’ proposals were designed not only to stop the transfer of U.S. military aid—including tank rounds, water rounds, and guidance kits attached to bombs dropped in Gaza—but also to signal a broader call for accountability on both sides of the aisle.

The Case Against U.S. Arms Sales

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the United States has provided Israel with more than $310 billion in economic and military assistance over the years, including at least $228 billion in military aid. Sanders contends that such enormous support has enabled Israel to pursue policies that he deems illegal under international law. In his view, the arms sales, worth roughly $20 billion, are not merely commercial transactions but contribute directly to the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza.

At a news conference held alongside Senators Peter Welch, Chris Van Hollen, and Jeff Merkley, Sanders reiterated his stance: “The U.S. government is currently in violation of the law, and every member of the Senate who believes in the rule of law should vote for these resolutions.” He argued that continued U.S. military support for Israel, especially under current conditions, amounts to a betrayal of both international law and American taxpayers’ interests.

Sanders and like-minded critics have also pointed to alleged violations of the Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act. The Vermont Independent has argued that these laws are being flouted by providing arms to nations that allegedly violate human rights or hinder humanitarian assistance. For Sanders, the resolution was a necessary measure to prevent further complicity in actions that have led to widespread suffering.

International and Humanitarian Perspectives

While the U.S. legislative debate rages on, the situation on the ground in Gaza grows ever more desperate. Humanitarian organizations and the United Nations have repeatedly highlighted Israel’s strict limits on sending aid into Gaza—a policy that has exacerbated the crisis. In a recent Washington Post opinion piece, Sanders lamented that “the volume of aid getting into Gaza in recent weeks is lower than at any point since the war began.”

The failure of the Senate to pass Sanders’ resolutions, however, underscores the deep-rooted geopolitical alliances that shape U.S. foreign policy. Israel remains one of America’s most steadfast allies, a relationship that has long influenced U.S. defense and economic strategies in the Middle East. Despite the humanitarian concerns raised, many senators continue to support the administration’s approach, arguing that U.S. military aid is vital to maintaining regional stability and ensuring that Israel can defend itself against ongoing threats.

Political Repercussions and Divisions

The Senate vote is emblematic of the broader political divisions within the United States. While many Democrats, including Sanders, have criticized the Biden administration for its uncritical support of Israel’s military actions, the overwhelming rejection of his resolutions indicates that a significant portion of the Senate remains committed to the traditional pro-Israel stance.

This division is further underscored by the political rhetoric surrounding the debate. Sanders has consistently voiced his disapproval of what he sees as unchecked military support that contributes to a cycle of violence and human suffering. His remarks—both on the Senate floor and in opinion pieces—paint a picture of a government complicit in policies that he describes as “unspeakable and immoral.”

Conversely, supporters of the current policy argue that a strong U.S.-Israel alliance is essential for regional security. They contend that the arms sales and military aid are not only legally justified but necessary to counter external threats in a volatile region. The debate, therefore, is not solely about the legality or morality of the arms sales; it is also a reflection of deeper ideological divides over the role of U.S. foreign policy and the balance between national security and humanitarian considerations.

Looking Ahead: The Path Forward

Despite the Senate’s overwhelming vote against the resolutions, the issues raised by Sanders are unlikely to disappear from the national discourse. The persistent humanitarian crisis in Gaza, combined with ongoing debates over U.S. foreign policy, ensures that these topics will remain at the forefront of political debate.

For proponents of reform, Sanders’ resolutions serve as a rallying cry for greater accountability in U.S. arms sales and a more measured approach to military aid. They argue that if the U.S. continues to support military actions that result in massive civilian casualties and humanitarian disasters, it risks undermining its own values and international standing.

Meanwhile, those on the other side of the aisle insist that the strategic interests of national security and regional stability must come first. They warn that any significant shift in U.S. policy could have far-reaching consequences, potentially weakening a key ally and altering the balance of power in the Middle East.

Conclusion: A Crossroads of Morality and Realpolitik

The Senate’s rejection of Senator Bernie Sanders’ resolutions to halt a $20 billion arms sale to Israel marks a critical juncture in American politics. It brings into sharp focus the tension between moral imperatives and realpolitik, between the urgent need to address a burgeoning humanitarian crisis and the geopolitical realities that have long defined U.S. foreign policy.

While the vote signifies a setback for those seeking to curtail U.S. military support for Israel, it also highlights the persistent challenge of enacting change in a deeply entrenched system. As the debate continues, both within the halls of Congress and on the global stage, the fundamental questions remain: How can the United States reconcile its strategic interests with its commitment to human rights? And what steps can be taken to ensure that American policies do not contribute to further suffering in conflict zones?

For now, the Senate’s decision reinforces the status quo, even as calls for reform and greater accountability echo loudly from various corners of the political spectrum. The conversation about U.S. arms sales, humanitarian responsibility, and international law is far from over—it is a debate that will undoubtedly shape the future of American foreign policy for years to come.