Follow us on social

Dems call for more oversight of US weapons in Gaza

Dems call for more oversight of US weapons in Gaza

Powerful Biden allies are raising alarms about Israel’s use of American arms

Reporting | Washington Politics

The Biden administration must take steps to increase the oversight of U.S. weapons given to Israel in order to reduce civilian harm in Gaza, argued a group of powerful Democratic senators in a new open letter to President Joe Biden.

“Israel is a U.S. partner, and we must ensure accountability for the use of U.S. weapons we provided to our ally,” wrote the group of lawmakers, which included Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Tim Kaine (D-Va.).

The letter, while carefully worded to avoid condemning administration policy, is among the strongest statements of concern from Biden’s Senate allies about how he has approached the war. The U.S.-backed Israeli campaign has left more than 16,000 Palestinians dead, 70% of whom were women or children, according to Palestinian officials.

The statement comes as Congress considers a large spending package that includes $14 billion in weapons aid for Israel as well as measures that would waive some transparency requirements for military assistance to the country — a sharp contrast with the detailed information that the Biden administration has shared on its aid to Ukraine.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) announced Wednesday that he plans to introduce an amendment to the bill that would require that all weapons sent through this package be used in accordance with U.S. law and international law, including the law of armed conflict. The proposal would also require Biden to report to Congress on this question, forcing the administration to evaluate Israel’s adherence to U.S. laws and policies.

Sanders, meanwhile, has gone further than his colleagues and said he opposes the package in its current form, arguing that the U.S. should not be helping “the right-wing, extremist Netanyahu government to continue its current military strategy.”

“What the Netanyahu government is doing is immoral, it is in violation of international law, and the United States should not be complicit in those actions,” he argued in a separate letter.

In the Warren-led letter, the lawmakers highlight the dramatic impact that Israel’s bombing campaign has had on Gaza by rattling off a list of alleged human rights violations committed by Israeli forces. Drawing on press reports, the senators say Israel has struck civilians in “safe zones” they were told to flee to, killed well over 100 civilians in attacks on a refugee camp, and targeted hospitals such that it became impossible to provide medical care.

“While these strikes were aimed at Hamas, we have concerns that strikes on civilian infrastructure have not been proportional, particularly given the predictable harm to civilians,” the lawmakers wrote. Sens. Martin Heimrich (D-N.M.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) also signed the missive.

Notably, the letter questions whether the administration has held to its own policies in Gaza, a point raised by numerous experts and former officials over the past two months. They applauded several civilian protection initiatives that Biden has undertaken — including a policy saying the U.S. will not give weapons to anyone who will “more likely than not” use them to violate human rights — but argued that it is “unclear, however, how these different efforts are or will be applied to protect civilians in Gaza.”

“Your administration must ensure that existing guidance and standards are being used to evaluate the reports of Israel using U.S. weapons in attacks that harm civilians in order to more rigorously protect civilian safety during Israel’s operations in Gaza,” they wrote.

The lawmakers also raised concerns about specific weapons that the U.S. continues to provide Israel, including artillery rounds that have been used in allegedly indiscriminate attacks. “The DoD as a whole has yet to define safeguards or issue a statement on how Israel should use U.S. weapons,” the letter notes.

The letter ends with a series of questions for the administration demanding details about what assurances Israel has provided about its use of U.S. weapons as well as an explanation of how the U.S. addresses allegations of civilian harm by Israeli forces.


Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) speaking at a Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing. (Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA)/ Sen. Tim Kaine (Gage Skidmore/ CC BY-SA 2.0)

Reporting | Washington Politics
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.