In a pivotal decision that underscores the enduring strength of the U.S.-Israel alliance, the U.S. Senate has decisively rejected three resolutions introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) aimed at halting a major arms deal with Israel. The $20 billion sale, which includes tank ammunition, artillery shells, and precision-guided munitions, is now poised to proceed despite growing controversy surrounding Israel’s military operations in Gaza and increasing calls from within the Democratic Party to reassess unconditional support.
On Wednesday evening, the Senate voted overwhelmingly against Sanders’ measures. His primary resolution, S.J. Res. 111, was defeated in an 18-79 vote—an outcome that, while anticipated, starkly highlights both the entrenched bipartisan backing Israel enjoys in Congress and the growing discontent simmering among progressive lawmakers.
Sanders’ Humanitarian Appeal
Senator Sanders, one of the most outspoken critics of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, made a forceful plea on the Senate floor prior to the vote. He urged his colleagues to confront the human costs of the U.S.-Israel military partnership, citing staggering figures from the ongoing war in Gaza.
“More than 43,000 Palestinians have lost their lives,” Sanders stated, referencing data from the Gaza Health Ministry. “Millions more are at risk of famine and disease. We must ask ourselves: are American weapons contributing to this devastation?”
The Vermont senator argued that the arms deal not only contradicts international law but also undermines America’s moral standing. He emphasized that while Israel has a right to defend itself, there must be accountability when that right is exercised in a manner that results in massive civilian casualties and humanitarian catastrophe.
The Context: A Year of War and Rising Deaths
Sanders introduced the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval in late September 2024, nearly a year after the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israeli soil. That attack triggered one of the deadliest military escalations in the region’s history, leading to relentless Israeli airstrikes, ground incursions, and widespread destruction in Gaza.
As Israel’s military response intensified, humanitarian organizations and U.N. agencies began issuing increasingly dire warnings. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other groups have described Gaza’s situation as catastrophic, with millions facing “extremely critical” levels of hunger and nearly complete collapse of health and sanitation infrastructure.
Despite these warnings, the Biden administration has continued to facilitate military aid to Israel, arguing that it is vital for regional security and for countering terrorist threats. Sanders and a bloc of progressive senators, however, have challenged this rationale, insisting that unchecked weapons transfers make the United States complicit in potential war crimes.
Divisions Within the Democratic Party
The failure of Sanders’ resolutions is not surprising, given the Senate’s historical loyalty to Israel. However, it also laid bare a widening rift within the Democratic Party. President Joe Biden has steadfastly supported Israel’s right to defend itself, often reiterating the country’s strategic importance to U.S. interests in the Middle East. Yet, growing numbers of Democrats—particularly those aligned with the party’s progressive wing—are demanding that future arms deals be conditioned on Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law.
Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) joined Sanders in his call to pause the arms sale. At a joint press conference, the senators emphasized that the U.S. must not ignore the humanitarian implications of its foreign policy.
“These weapons are not just theoretical,” said Senator Van Hollen. “They are being used right now, and they are having devastating consequences for innocent civilians. If we care about international law and human rights, we need to back that up with action.”
The vote exposed an ideological divide between centrist Democrats who prioritize strategic alliances and progressives who argue that military aid must not come without conditions or consequences.
Republican Support for Israel Remains Strong
On the other side of the aisle, Republican senators rejected Sanders’ resolutions almost unanimously. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was among those who strongly defended the arms sale, characterizing it as essential to U.S. national security interests and the defense of a key democratic ally in a volatile region.
“This effort by Senator Sanders is not only misguided—it’s dangerous,” McConnell said. “Weakening our support for Israel would embolden Hamas, Hezbollah, and other extremist groups. Israel has a right to defend itself, and we must stand by our allies.”
Republican lawmakers echoed concerns that placing conditions on military support could hamper Israel’s operational capabilities and send the wrong message to both allies and adversaries in the region.
White House Stance and Accountability Debate
The Biden administration has maintained that while it supports Israel’s right to self-defense, military aid is accompanied by expectations that humanitarian law is upheld. However, critics contend that these assurances are little more than diplomatic rhetoric without meaningful enforcement mechanisms.
Senator Sanders has accused the White House of failing to adequately monitor or limit how U.S. weapons are used. “Words are not enough,” he said. “If Israel continues to act with impunity, and we continue to arm them, then we are part of the problem.”
The administration’s position has drawn criticism not only from lawmakers but also from advocacy groups and international observers. Organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have urged the U.S. to implement strict oversight of arms exports and to ensure that American weapons are not used in violation of international law.
The Political and Moral Crossroads
While Sanders’ resolutions were defeated, the broader implications of the debate are still unfolding. The vote signals a growing willingness among some lawmakers to challenge long-held assumptions about U.S.-Israel relations. It also reflects a shifting public sentiment, particularly among younger Americans and Democratic voters, who increasingly question the morality and legality of unconditional military aid.
Sarah Johnson, a spokesperson for Human Rights Watch, described the Senate debate as a “watershed moment,” even if the resolutions failed. “There’s a growing recognition that our foreign policy must be guided not just by strategic interests, but by human rights. This vote doesn’t change the outcome on the ground today, but it changes the conversation,” she said.
The issue is likely to remain a focal point in the run-up to the 2026 elections, as progressive Democrats seek to elevate humanitarian concerns within foreign policy discussions and push for greater accountability in U.S. arms transfers.
Looking Ahead
For now, the $20 billion arms deal is expected to move forward, further cementing the military bond between the U.S. and Israel. Yet the political landscape is clearly evolving. As more lawmakers voice concern about civilian casualties and the ethical responsibilities of military partnerships, pressure on the Biden administration is intensifying.
Whether this signals a broader shift in American foreign policy or remains a momentary surge of progressive activism remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that Sanders’ bold stand—though unsuccessful legislatively—has reignited a vital and long-overdue debate about America’s role in one of the world’s most intractable conflicts.
