ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Bernie Sanders to introduce resolution of disapproval on $735 million U.S. arms sale to Israel

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,133
58,316
113
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is preparing to introduce a resolution on Thursday disapproving of the U.S. sale of $735 million in precision-guided weapons to Israel, according to a draft obtained by The Washington Post.

The resolution aims to halt the planned sale to Israel by the Biden administration of JDAMs, or Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and Small Diameter Bombs, as the worst hostilities in years continue between Israel and Hamas. The resolution needs only a simple majority to pass the Senate; but if it were to be vetoed by President Joe Biden, it would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to take effect.
“At a moment when U.S.-made bombs are devastating Gaza, and killing women and children, we cannot simply let another huge arms sale go through without even a congressional debate," Sanders said in a statement to The Post.



"I believe that the United States must help lead the way to a peaceful and prosperous future for both Israelis and Palestinians. We need to take a hard look at whether the sale of these weapons is actually helping do that, or whether it is simply fueling conflict.”
[House Democrats, in disarray over arms sale to Israel, take complaints to Biden administration]
Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) introduced a similar resolution on Wednesday opposing the sale of weapons to the Israeli government. House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats are expected to summon a senior Biden administration official to a meeting as soon as Thursday to discuss the arms deal.

“For decades, the U.S. has sold billions of dollars in weaponry to Israel without ever requiring them to respect basic Palestinian rights," Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement. "In so doing, we have directly contributed to the death, displacement and disenfranchisement of millions.”




The congressional action comes as President Biden yesterday bluntly demanded a de-escalation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas, opening a rare rift between the U.S. and one of its closest allies. The president did so in the face of increasing criticism from some liberal Democrats who have loudly condemned what they see as American willingness to turn a blind eye to human-rights abuses Palestinians have experienced at the hands of Israel’s government.


It marks the first major dissension between progressives and Biden, who have been cheerleaders for the president’s ambitious economic agenda during the pandemic. But actually getting the resolution from congressional passage to enactment is a big hurdle.

Lawmakers have never successfully blocked a proposed arms sale through a joint resolution of disapproval, according to the Congressional Research Service, although it has passed them in recent years. Former president Donald Trump vetoed three resolutions passed by Congress in 2019 to stop arms sales benefiting Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates after the House and Senate voted to block the arms deals worth more than $8 billion.
While Sanders’s resolution faces long odds, it appears to be guaranteed a vote in the Senate, according to procedures outlined in the International Security and Arms Export Control Act of 1976. “In some way or another, this starts the ball rolling with the Senate voting in one way or another on this sale to Israel,” said a source familiar with Sanders’s thinking.


[House Democrats, in disarray over arms sale to Israel, take complaints to Biden administration]

Sanders penned an op-ed for the New York Times last week, panning the U.S. government for being too accommodating toward Israel. The Vermont senator also introduced a different resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire on Wednesday between the Israel Defense Forces and Hamas -- an alternative to Sen. Rick Scott’s (R-Fla.) proposal to affirm U.S. support for Israel.
“The devastation in Gaza is unconscionable," Sanders said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “We must urge an immediate ceasefire.”
If the resolution does garner substantial backing from Senate Democrats, it would still need 51 votes (and passage in the House) to head to Biden’s desk. That 51st vote would have to come from Vice President Harris, who would be put in the awkward position of bucking her boss’s line on the conflict if she had to cast a tie-breaking vote.



Support for a cease-fire among Senate Democrats is growing.
Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) released a bipartisan statement last weekend calling for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a staunch defender of Israel, signed on to the statement and told reporters Monday he wanted to see a cease-fire “reached quickly.”
Schumer is up for re-election in New York next year and has otherwise been quiet on the issue roiling the Democratic Party.

 
I heard a speaker on NPR last week say that all military aid to Israel requires 80% be spent with US companies, and that Israel share any technology developed using those funds. I don't know if that's true, but if so, it's just pushing more money to the US MIC.
 
I heard a speaker on NPR last week say that all military aid to Israel requires 80% be spent with US companies, and that Israel share any technology developed using those funds. I don't know if that's true, but if so, it's just pushing more money to the US MIC.
Seems like a reasonable requirement for aid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FormerlyCyberCy
  • Like
Reactions: 3 and Out on D
Israel spends $20 billion a year on their military. Palestine spends $0. Bernie is right again. We shouldn't be doing this.
How much does the rest of the Middle East spend? The Palestinians obviously aren’t supplying their own rockets. BTW, I have a Palestinian American friend. It’s pretty easy to see their side of this.
 
Israel spends $20 billion a year on their military. Palestine spends $0. Bernie is right again. We shouldn't be doing this.
Palestine spends zero? Where did Hamas get over 4000 rockets they launched last week? Were they free?

In the end, I agree with you on the spending. I just disagree with your premise and how you got to the same conclusion.
 
How much does the rest of the Middle East spend? The Palestinians obviously aren’t supplying their own rockets. BTW, I have a Palestinian American friend. It’s pretty easy to see their side of this.
Israel can shoot down the vast majority of Palestinian rockets with their defense system. Whereas Palestine can't do anything against Israel's attacks. They just have to take it all. Lopsided is an understatement.
 
Palestine spends zero? Where did Hamas get over 4000 rockets they launched last week? Were they free?

In the end, I agree with you on the spending. I just disagree with your premise and how you got to the same conclusion.
Google it. Palestine has no military. No standing army. No air force. No Navy. Don't mistake some low tech rockets Israel can mostly swat away like flies as being anything close to a real military.
 
I heard a speaker on NPR last week say that all military aid to Israel requires 80% be spent with US companies, and that Israel share any technology developed using those funds. I don't know if that's true, but if so, it's just pushing more money to the US MIC.

That would not surprise me in the least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Also seems like a conflict of interest. Suggests we’ll “aid” whoever can pay the bill.
"military aid to Israel requires 80% be spent with US companies, and that Israel share any technology developed using those funds."

Those requirements are in our interest.

If we gave military aid without those requirements it'd be pretty idiotic.
 
"military aid to Israel requires 80% be spent with US companies, and that Israel share any technology developed using those funds."

Those requirements are in our interest.

If we gave military aid without those requirements it'd be pretty idiotic.
I agree. But this is arguably still viewable as a conflict of interest. Fundamentally.
 
I agree. But this is arguably still viewable as a conflict of interest. Fundamentally.
I'd agree if it was humanitarian aid.

When it comes to military aid we need strings attached IMO. We've received a lot of good improvements in U.S military hardware from Israel over the years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85
Not really. I’m disagreeing with your point but I respect your opinion.
There's nothing to disagree with. I'm talking fundamentally, irrespective of this particular relationship with this particular nation.

What I'm driving at is, in theory, aid should be relegated to those that need it based not on what they give back, but rather based purely on altruism/ethics. Meaning, in theory, the only fundamentally not-conflict-of-interest type of aid would be with regard to factors entirely independent of self-interest.

Think of this in terms of this: Person needs CPR. You know CPR. Do you assess how the person might be able to reimburse you before deciding to give CPR?

This is what I mean, in a very extreme analogy sort of way.

Here's another way to look at it. What if, as it turns out, that Palestine is more right, or at least less wrong, than Israel in all of this, and actually more "deserving" of our assistance in the matter, but we don't give it simply because we don't expect much in return? This is what I mean by conflict of interest.

Think of this in terms of our politicians. We worried about Clinton conflicts of interest, then those of Trump. Why? Because the concern is that their decision-making is motivated not by what's right, or the most right, or the least wrong, but rather by who can or has paid the most.

That's what I'm alluding to. Conflict of interest in the sort of fundamental theoretical sense.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TarponSpringsNole
This is what I mean, in a very extreme analogy sort of way.

Here's another way to look at it. What if, as it turns out, that Palestine is more right, or at least less wrong, than Israel in all of this, and actually more "deserving" of our assistance in the matter, but we don't give it simply because we don't expect much in return?
What is this “Palestine” entity you refer to? Hamas led Gaza or the Abbas led West Bank Palestinians?
 
ADVERTISEMENT