Follow us on social

google cta
Bernie Sanders Israel

Will Democrats help Bernie block weapons to Israel?

Update: the vote Wednesday to prevent $20 billion in sales failed, but supporters still called the moment 'historic'

Reporting | Middle East
google cta
google cta

UPDATE 11/20, 9:30 PM: The Senate Wednesday overwhelmingly rejected three Joint Resolutions of Disapproval which would have blocked the sale of offensive weapons to Israel. The votes were 79-18 against each of the measures.


The Senate today is set to vote on a measure that, if passed, would block $20 billion worth of arms sales to the state of Israel.

The Senate vote is the first of its kind regarding weapons to Israel, according to advocates supporting the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval, which were introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in September.

The JRDs are co-sponsored by Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) have subsequently endorsed them.

“Clearly what is happening in Gaza today is unspeakable, but what makes it even more painful is that much of this has been done with U.S. weapons and American taxpayer dollars,” Sanders said in a Nov. 19 press conference held with Merkley, Welch, and Van Hollen ahead of the vote.

Sanders said the U.S. could not stand by while Israel violated human rights with American made weapons including “the loss of 43,000 and rising Palestinians, many of whom are women and children and non-combatants, not at all connected to Hamas,” and “over 100,000 children and innocent bystanders who have been severely injured, including amputation.” Welch added that the Leahy Law, which makes the sale of such weapons to foreign forces that violate human rights illegal, demands they block the sale.

“Is the United States and its foreign policy — with that commitment we’ve had to Israel — forced to be blind to the suffering before our very eyes, particularly when it’s our munitions that are being used? Should we be blind to the suffering of those Palestinian women and children when top military officials in Israel themselves have said that there’s no further military purpose for continued bombing and military activity in Gaza?” asked Welch. “Our view is no.”

Sanders noted that in the last year alone, the U.S. has provided $18 billion in military aid to Israel and delivered more than 50,000 tons of military equipment. “In other words, the United States is complicit in these atrocities. That complicity must end, and that is what these resolutions are about,” Sanders stressed. “It is time to tell the Netanyahu government that they cannot use U.S. taxpayer dollars and American weapons in violation of U.S. and international law and our moral values.”

In his own statement supporting the JRDs, Van Hollen said that the United States should “pause the delivery of offensive weapons to the Netanyahu government until it complies with U.S. law and policy and until we can advance the security interests, priorities, and values of the American people.”

It is not clear how much support the measures will get from the full Senate. RS contacted the offices of 25 Democratic senators who might be likely to join Sanders in blocking the weapons package. None responded with a clear position as of Tuesday night.

For example, the staff at Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy’s office said they had “nothing to share” about the upcoming vote. New Mexico Sen. Ben Ray Luján’s office remarked that “[Luján] hasn’t updated us about his position on [the JRDs], but it’s on his radar.” New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich’s office said that “the senator has not released a statement at this time.”

And according to an email from Sen. Angus King’s office (I-Maine): “Different offices do different things, I realize, but we do not proclaim or signal votes in advance.” Similar responses came in from Sens. Thomas Carper (D-Del.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). (Editor's note: King's office sent RS the following statement after he voted for the JRDs on Wednesday: "The goal is to work towards a more prosperous, safer, and peaceful future for both Israelis and Palestinians. I am optimistic about this future and believe that this vote brings us a step closer to achieving it.”)

Notably, the vast majority of email and phone requests as of Tuesday night went unanswered.

It may be that cutting off weapons to Israel is a bridge too far for lawmakers who have otherwise vocalized support for the civilians on the ground in Gaza. For example, although Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) has supported a ceasefire and previously joined other senators’ calls on Biden to create a path for a “nonmilitarized Palestinian state” a Daily Cardinal article reported that Baldwin’s staff has offered “no commitment either way” on the upcoming JRD vote.

Supporters are hoping to get at least as much — if not more Democratic support — than a pair of similar measures received earlier this year. In one case, 21 senators voiced support for a legislative amendment ensuring that Congress be notified of all military assistance to Israel. Another, a bill led by Sanders requiring the State Department to provide Congress with information on Israel's human rights practices, only received 11 votes at the time in January.

In any case, the pressure is on. Over 175 businesses and organizations called on Maine Senators Angus King and Susan Collins to vote for the JRDs on November 19. Furthermore, a coalition of 56 progressive groups led by Demand Progress called on Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to take on Van Hollen’s pro-JRD stance in a Tuesday press release, highlighting Reed’s previous collaboration with the senator.

“Sen. Reed joined Sen. Van Hollen to say that U.S. support for Israel must never be a blank check,” the release says. “It’s now time to revoke Israel’s blank check. Sen. Reed needs to back up his words and join Sen. Van Hollen by voting to support the resolutions blocking the transfer of offensive weapons to Israel.”

Along similar lines, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) demonstrators called on Reed to support the JRDs last month at a “Democratic Unity” fundraiser. Relevant staff at Reed’s office could not be reached for comment.

While the JRDs appear unlikely to pass, some say this marks a turning point in U.S.-Israeli affairs after over a year of war.

“These Joint Resolutions of Disapproval mark a historic moment — the first vote in Congress to block offensive arms sales to Israel in United States history,” Hassan El-Tayyab, the Legislative Director for Middle East Policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), told Responsible Statecraft.

“Even if these resolutions don't pass, the fact that they are up for consideration at all signals a major shift in the U.S.-Israel relationship.”

RS reporters Aaron Sobczak and Sam Bull contributed to this report.


Top photo credit: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a press conference regarding legislation that would block offensive U.S. weapons sales to Israel, with Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Peter Welch (D-VT) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., November 19, 2024. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
google cta
Reporting | Middle East
Trump Central Asia
Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) attend a dinner with the leaders of the C5+1Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 6, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

Central Asia doesn't need another great game

Asia-Pacific

The November 6 summit between President Donald Trump and the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan in Washington, D.C. represents a significant moment in U.S.-Central Asia relations (C5+1). It was the first time a U.S. president hosted the C5+1 group in the White House, marking a turning point for U.S. relations with Central Asia.

The summit signaled a clear shift toward economic engagement. Uzbekistan pledged $35 billion in U.S. investments over three years (potentially $100 billion over a decade) and Kazakhstan signed $17 billion in bilateral agreements and agreed to cooperate with the U.S. on critical minerals. Most controversially, Kazakhstan became the first country in Trump's second term to join the Abraham Accords.

keep readingShow less
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Golden Dome, mission impossible

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less
Xi Jinping
Top image credit: Photo agency and Lev Radin via shutterstock.com

Why Texas should invite Xi Jinping to a rodeo

Asia-Pacific

Last year, Texas banned professional contact by state employees (including university professors) with mainland China, to “harden” itself against the influence of the Communist Party of China – an entity that has governed the country since 1949, and whose then-leader, Deng Xiaoping, attended a Texas rodeo in 1979.

Defending the policy, the new provost of the University of Texas, my colleague Will Inboden, writes in National Affairs that “the US government estimates that the CPC has purloined up to $600 billion worth of American technology each year – some of it from American companies but much of it from American universities.” US GDP is currently around $30 trillion, so $600 billion would represent 2% of that sum, or roughly 70% of the US defense budget ($880 billion). It also amounts to about one-third of all spending ($1.8 trillion) by all US colleges and universities, on all subjects and activities, every year. Make that 30 cents of every tuition dollar and a third of every federal research grant.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.