The U.S. Senate has overwhelmingly voted down a series of measures introduced by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders that sought to halt a multibillion-dollar arms sale to Israel. The decision underscores the deep divisions in Washington over how to approach the ongoing Israel–Hamas conflict, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and the balance between security interests and humanitarian concerns.
The Vote and Its Outcome
On Wednesday evening, the Senate rejected Sanders’ Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs) by wide margins, with the most prominent resolution, S.J. Res. 111, failing in an 18–79 vote. The measures targeted a proposed $20 billion arms package to Israel that included tank ammunition, precision-guided munitions kits, and other weapons.
Though the resolutions were unlikely to succeed given longstanding bipartisan support for Israel, Sanders’ push highlighted a growing debate within Congress. While Republicans and many Democrats stood firmly behind military aid, a smaller but increasingly vocal group of lawmakers is questioning the humanitarian consequences of continued arms transfers.
Sanders’ Argument
Senator Sanders, who has long been critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, delivered an impassioned speech on the Senate floor. He warned that U.S. weapons were contributing to immense suffering in Gaza, where civilian casualties and humanitarian needs have reached staggering levels.
“The United States cannot remain complicit in a war that has devastated Gaza and left millions of people on the brink of starvation,” Sanders said. He accused Israel of going beyond its right to self-defense and of violating international law, particularly in restricting humanitarian aid.
Citing figures from the Gaza Health Ministry, Sanders noted that more than 43,000 people have been killed since Israel launched its military response following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. He also pointed to United Nations reports that over two million Palestinians are now enduring “extremely critical” levels of hunger.
A Divided Democratic Party
Although Sanders’ resolutions did not pass, they revealed fractures within the Democratic Party over U.S. policy toward Israel. Several Democrats have echoed concerns about the humanitarian crisis, urging greater accountability and conditionality on U.S. aid. Senators Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), and Peter Welch (Vt.) joined Sanders at a press conference, stressing that American-made weapons should not be used in ways that worsen civilian suffering.
Still, most Democratic senators aligned with the Biden administration, which has maintained strong support for Israel as a key U.S. ally. The White House argues that arms transfers are essential to Israel’s security and deterrence, especially after the Hamas assault that killed around 1,200 Israelis and triggered the current war.
The split within the party reflects broader tensions among Democratic voters. While support for Israel remains strong among many older and moderate Democrats, younger and more progressive voters are increasingly critical of unconditional U.S. backing.
Israel, Hamas, and the Broader Context
The arms sale debate cannot be separated from the broader conflict that has gripped the Middle East since Hamas’ surprise attack on October 7, 2023. That assault included rocket fire and cross-border raids that killed civilians and soldiers alike, shocking Israel and prompting a massive military campaign in Gaza.
Israel has framed its actions as necessary for national survival and the dismantling of Hamas’ infrastructure. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government argues that without strong U.S. backing, Israel’s ability to defend itself would be gravely weakened.
But critics like Sanders contend that the scale of Israel’s response has inflicted disproportionate harm on civilians, destroyed vital infrastructure, and deepened Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. The debate in Washington mirrors this tension: security imperatives on one side, humanitarian obligations on the other.
The Humanitarian Toll
International organizations continue to warn of catastrophic conditions in Gaza. The United Nations has cautioned that famine could soon emerge, as food, medicine, and clean water remain scarce. More than two million residents—most of the territory’s population—are experiencing what experts describe as “extremely critical” hunger levels.
Hospitals and clinics, already struggling under shortages of supplies and electricity, are overwhelmed. Aid groups say that restrictions on humanitarian deliveries have left them unable to meet basic needs, while ongoing bombardments make distribution dangerous and unpredictable.
For Sanders and his supporters, these conditions strengthen the argument that U.S. arms sales make Washington complicit in prolonging suffering. For opponents, the same conditions highlight the urgency of defeating Hamas to restore stability and eventually allow for reconstruction.
The Biden Administration’s Position
President Joe Biden has repeatedly emphasized Israel’s right to defend itself while also calling for steps to alleviate civilian suffering. The administration insists that U.S. aid is necessary for Israel’s security and for regional stability, particularly given threats from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran’s influence in the region.
At the same time, Biden officials have encouraged Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza and to minimize civilian casualties. However, critics argue that these appeals have had limited impact, and that conditioning or restricting military aid would send a stronger message.
Historical Precedent and Future Implications
Efforts to block U.S. arms sales to Israel are not new, but they rarely succeed. Israel remains one of the largest recipients of American military assistance, reflecting a decades-long bipartisan consensus. The current debate, however, is notable for its intensity and the number of lawmakers publicly questioning the status quo.
If the trend continues, future administrations may face more pressure to tie military aid to humanitarian standards or diplomatic progress toward peace. While Sanders’ resolutions failed by a wide margin, they signal a shifting conversation in U.S. politics that could shape policy debates for years to come.
Conclusion
The Senate’s rejection of Senator Sanders’ resolutions confirms that strong bipartisan support for U.S.–Israel military ties remains intact. Yet the debate also highlights emerging cracks in that consensus, as humanitarian concerns increasingly enter the political spotlight.
For now, Israel will continue to receive U.S. arms as it prosecutes its war in Gaza. But the questions raised—about America’s role, about accountability for civilian suffering, and about the balance between security and morality—are unlikely to fade.
As the conflict continues and humanitarian needs escalate, those debates will only grow sharper, both in Congress and among the American public.