Will Senate vote signal a wider shift away from Israel?

US Senator Bernie Sanders. ([ROBIN VAN LONKHUIJSEN/ANP/AFP via Getty Images])

An unprecedented 19 senators opposed a recent arms sale, we’ll soon find out whether that sentiment is growing

By Charles O. Blaha, Reposted from Responsible Statecraft, Dec. 4. 2024

On November 20, the Senate voted on three Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs) of proposed arms transfers to Israel. The vote was historic, marking the first time there had ever been such a vote against major arms sales to Israel. The resolutions failed, but their success in securing 19 Senate votes reflects that times are changing when it comes to arms transfers to Israel.

The proposed JRDs disapproved of three specific shipments of offensive arms to Israel, with a total value of over $1.6 billion, which have caused massive civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon: tank rounds worth $774 million; mortar rounds worth $583 million; and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), which are guidance kits for gravity-guided air-to-ground missiles, worth $262 million.

Led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 18 senators voted to disapprove all three of the proposed arms shipments, despite intense opposition led by the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee and, sadly, President Biden and Senate Majority Leader Schumer (D-N.Y.). A nineteenth senator, Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), opposed the shipment of the tank and mortar rounds, but did not oppose the JDAMs.

The Biden administration itself has admitted that Israel has misused U.S. arms in Gaza. In December 2023, President Biden called Israeli bombing of Gaza “indiscriminate.” And then in May, the State Department’s report pursuant to National Security Memorandum 20 made an even broader assessment of Israel’s use of U.S. origin arms, finding that “it is reasonable to assess” that U.S.-supplied arms “have been used by Israeli security forces since October 7 in instances inconsistent with its IHL [international humanitarian law] obligations.”

The three resolutions in question wisely directed opposition toward specific offensive weapons that have caused many civilian casualties, in particular in the current war in Gaza.

U.S. supplied tank rounds have caused many civilian casualties, and were among the munitions used in the January 2024 killing of 6-year-old Hind Rajab, her family, and the Palestinian medics who tried to rescue her. Although the IDF portrays mortars as precise defensive weapons used against enemy missile sites, in practice, mortar rounds have been a leading cause of civilian casualties.

Some JRD opponents, like Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), misleadingly portrayed the JDAMs as items that minimize civilian casualties in making strikes more precise by attaching targeting guidance technology to what are otherwise gravity-guided bombs (so-called “dumb bombs”).

In practice, making these bombs more “precise” in their targeting does not solve the problem of indiscriminate Israeli strikes with massive civilian harm. More precision does not ameliorate bad targeting decisions. As set forth in the NSM-20 report from an independent task force, of which the author was a member, Israel has repeatedly targeted sites with scores of civilians present, especially women and children, in apparent attempts to kill small numbers of low-level Hamas militants who may not even be there.

And even when that is not the case, the bombs themselves have huge impact areas regardless of how much precision guidance they have. Israeli airstrikes using JDAMs on large bombs have repeatedly caused civilian casualties, most recently in an airstrike in Lebanon that killed three journalists.

During the floor debate, arguments against the resolutions largely ignored the horrific toll of civilian casualties in Gaza, except to blame them on Hamas. Israel’s systematic and widespread indiscriminate bombardment and flawed weaponeering decisions received little critical review.

Some opponents’ arguments against the JRDs also claimed that blocking weapons to Israel, regardless of their violations of the laws of war, would in effect support and strengthen Hamas and Iran. The reality is exactly the opposite. Israel’s enemies have drawn massive regional and international support and strength from reports of the over 44,000 deaths Israel has caused, over half of them women and children — and many, if not most, from the very weapons the JRDs attempted to block.

Opponents ignored the geopolitical costs of unconditional U.S. assistance to Israel. Like Israel, the U.S. has become increasingly isolated in the world and has hemorrhaged credibility and diplomatic influence, especially in the global south. This badly weakens the U.S. in its global strategic competition with China and Russia. U.S. businesses have faced boycotts throughout the world because of their ties to Israel. U.S. military installations have come under attack. None of this is in the U.S. interest.

Lacking a majority, all three resolutions failed. The four Democratic senators from the largest blue states, California, and New York, opposed all three resolutions. President Biden and Majority Leader Schumer both publicly opposed the resolutions, and both lobbied Senators against them. Republican senators were a solid wall of opposition.

But the very fact that the resolutions even came to a vote was historic, and is a sign that times are changing. Such a vote would have been unimaginable just a year ago, and reflects deep concern about Israel’s conduct of operations in Gaza. That 19 senators who voted to block the weapons to Israel in the face of such opposition reflects an extraordinary fracture in decades of lockstep, near-unanimous support for arms transfers to Israel. Notably, one vote in favor of the JRDs came from Sen. Jean Shaheen (D-N.H.), who will become the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

There are other signs times are changing. Three 2024 pre-election polls showed that likely voters, and not just Democrats, favored conditioning or even halting aid to Israel, including arms transfers. Vice President Kamala Harris’ failure to endorse an arms embargo against Israel has cost her the votes of many Arab, Muslim, and progressive-American voters.

Democrats who opposed the JRDs may be more inclined to support future ones, now that elections are in the rearview mirror and proposed sales will be coming from a Republican administration. For example, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who had just won a close re-election contest, voted “present” on all three and may be open to opposing sales in the future.

Non-government organizations and other civil society groups mounted a massive, multi-state effort to gain support for the JRDs and are determined to push for more. Going forward, civil society would do well to repeat what it did in these cases, directing efforts toward specific, clearly-offensive weapons, and backing those efforts with research about specific instances of civilian harm they have caused.

The next opportunity for such action may be close at hand. The Biden administration is now pushing forward a $680 million arms transfer to Israel, which includes thousands of additional JDAMs. The shipment is currently subject to a hold by Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D-N.Y.) Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

These groups should also track the process of drafting what will almost surely be the Trump administration’s conventional arms transfer (CAT) policy. The Biden administration’s CAT policy was, from a human rights and international humanitarian law perspective, the best one ever written. In addition to more explicit references to human rights and international humanitarian law, it prohibits transfers of arms when it is “more likely than not” they will be used in violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.

Unfortunately, the Biden team obviously failed to follow its own CAT policy in the case of Israel.

The Trump administration CAT policy will likely de-emphasize human rights and international humanitarian law and place more emphasis on U.S. commercial interests in transfers. Civil society engagement on this issue would be a valuable counterweight, and not just for arms transfers to Israel, but also worldwide.

Charles O. Blaha is a Senior Consultant for DAWN. Find more of his work here.

RELATED: