The uncontroversial principle at the heart of Bernie Sanders’ Senate resolution

In introducing a resolution aimed at increased transparency, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said Tuesday that, “Very sensibly, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 … requires that any security assistance or military equipment provided by the United States to any country must be used in line with internationally recognized human rights.” Thus, his question to his colleagues was simply this: “Do you support asking the State Department whether human rights violations may have occurred using U.S. equipment or assistance in this war?”

To be clear, Sanders noted, his resolution would not have reduced “a nickel” of the billions of dollars in military aid our nation provides Israel. Rather, it would have required the State Department to provide a report within 30 days of how U.S.-provided weapons are being used by the Israeli military in the Gaza war.

Even so, only 11 senators voted against a motion to table Sanders’ resolution: 10 Democrats and one Republican. 

There are good-faith debates to be had about the war in Gaza. But whether one supports Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration’s military response to Hamas’ brutal Oct. 7 terrorist attacks, or denounces it for having killed more than 24,000 people, most of them women and children, there should be no debate as to whether the U.S. ought to know if the weapons it supplies are being used in violation of human rights laws.

Play

Biden’s patience with Netanyahu should have run out already: Richard Haass January 17, 2024 / 09:30

As Sanders stated on the Senate floor Tuesday: “A vote for this resolution is simply to request more information on a tragic situation that the American people care deeply about. That’s it.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who echoed Sanders’ point that the resolution was intended to enforce the Foreign Assistance Act, said during Tuesday’s debate that “Prime Minister Netanyahu has to understand that he does not get a blank check from the United States Congress.” Rather, she said correctly, “We have a responsibility to stand up now and say that given how Netanyahu and his right-wing war Cabinet have prosecuted this war, we have serious questions that we are obligated to ask before we go further in our support.” 

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., slammed Sanders’ proposed resolution as an effort at “tying the hands of a close ally locked in a necessary battle against savage terrorists” and a gift to “left-wing, anti-Israel activists.” And Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who in an October discussion about Gaza called on the Israeli military to “level the place,” said the Sanders resolution would “empower the terrorist” and “may be the most tone-deaf thing in the history of the Senate.”

That only 11 senators voted against the move to effectively ignore Sanders’ resolution is even more troubling given that we know that U.S. weaponry has been used to create the hellscape that is now Gaza. As Sanders said in his floor speech, “The Wall Street Journal reported on Dec. 1 that the U.S. had provided at least 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells to Israel, including more than 5,400 huge 2,000-pound bombs that can flatten entire neighborhoods.” He added, “The Washington Post reported that, in just six weeks after Oct. 7, Israel dropped more than 22,000 American-supplied bombs on Gaza.”

Sanders was right when he declared: “Much of what is happening right now is being done with U.S. arms and equipment. In other words, whether we like it or not, the U.S. is complicit in the nightmare that millions of Palestinians are now experiencing.” But nothing, not even the plight of Palestinian children, has been able to persuade those who think questioning Israel’s tactics is wrong.

Some may disagree with Sanders’ characterization that the United States is complicit in how the Netanyahu regime has utilized U.S.-supplied weapons in the first 100 days of the war. But there’s no denying that, given what has already transpired, the U.S. will bear some moral responsibility if we provide additional military aid to Israel with no questions asked. Congress is currently considering an additional $14 billion in military aid to the Netanyahu administration. Shouldn’t members of Congress, before they vote, be fully informed on how U.S.-supplied weaponry has been used by the Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza?

As Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. — who supported Sanders’ resolution — explained last month in a Washington Post op-ed that “10 times more children” had been killed in Gaza in just two months than the number of children killed in the “nearly two years of war in Ukraine.” Israeli officials have admitted its military is killing two civilians for every Hamas terrorist. Even President Joe Biden last month called what he saw in Gaza “indiscriminate bombing” and warned that Israel was at risk of losing support worldwide.

Some of the Democratic senators who voted to table the resolution still publicly supported Sanders’ bigger point of pressuring Netanyahu to reduce civilian deaths. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said in a statement that he opposed the resolution because he did not want to risk “the suspension of all U.S. assistance” during the war, but he added, “I am also concerned about how Israel is conducting the campaign in Gaza,” noting that the “Israeli military should be shifting to a more targeted campaign against Hamas in Gaza and doing more to protect civilians.”

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., explained in a statement that she voted to table the resolution out of concern it could lead to cutting off funding for Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system. But she added, “My vote tonight must not be confused for condoning specific policies of the Netanyahu government, many of which I’ve long and vocally opposed.” In a statement that denounced Hamas’ brutal Oct. 7 attacks, she expressed her concerns over “the unacceptable humanitarian crisis that innocent civilians in Gaza, including thousands of precious children, have endured.”

Middle East conflicts often elicit fierce debates and strong emotions. But we should all agree that U.S.-supplied military weapons must be utilized in compliance with U.S. and international law. That the U.S. Senate won’t demand this is an abdication of our country’s moral authority.