Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2021-05-19-at-4.09.03-pm

Progressive Dems take action amid escalating violence in Gaza

With the Biden team largely remaining quiet, measures introduced in Congress call for a ceasefire and blocking an arms sale to Israel.

Reporting | Middle East

Update 5/20, 6:40 a.m. ET : Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) says he is prepared to introduce a bill in the Senate today that would put a hold on the $735 million sale of precision guided missiles to Israel.

***

As the Biden administration muddles through efforts to end the fighting in Israel and Gaza, progressives in Congress appear to be stepping in to fill the leadership vacuum. 

One day after House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) reversed course on his plan to ask the White House to pause an arms sale to Israel amid the ongoing fighting, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) announced on Wednesday that they would introduce a resolution disapproving of the sale. 

“The United States should not be rubber-stamping weapons sales to the Israeli government as they deploy our resources to target international media outlets, schools, hospitals, humanitarian missions and civilian sites for bombing,” Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter. “We have a responsibility to protect human rights.” 

The measure is unlikely to go very far as the period for congressional review expires on Friday, but supporters praised its symbolism. 

“This is a historic day.” said Raed Jarrar, advocacy director for the human rights group Democracy for the Arab World. “Congress has never attempted to block an arms sale to Israel before, and it sends a clear message to the Israeli government that its days of impunity are coming to an end.”

Meanwhile, in the Senate, Sen Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced on Wednesday that he would block a GOP-led resolution offering “full and unequivocal U.S. support” for Israel’s bombardment of Gaza with a resolution of his own calling for an immediate ceasefire and supporting diplomatic effort to resolve the conflict. 


Photos: Diego G Diaz and lev radin via shutterstock.com
Reporting | Middle East
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.