On Tuesday, The Senate rejected a Congressional resolution that would have placed conditions on U.S. military aid to Israel, in the most serious effort yet on Capitol Hill to hold U.S. allies accountable for the brutal attack on Gaza. The initiative was cancelled.
The resolution, introduced in December by Sen. Bernie Sanders (R-Vt.), would require the State Department to clarify allegations of human rights abuses by Israel and the role the United States plays in and responds to human rights abuses. It required the submission of a report to Congress on the following matters. Such an act. If the bill passed and the State Department failed to submit a report within 30 days, U.S. aid to Israel would have been frozen. However, if the State Department had submitted a report to Congress, U.S. aid to Israel would have been voted on, giving Congress the option to condition, limit, or cancel security assistance to Israel (or do nothing). It might have been. Such a vote required only a simple majority for passage.
After a vote Tuesday night, the Senate voted 72-11 to advance the resolution, effectively killing it.
“Frankly, the very fact that this vote took place is historic,” said Andrew O’Neill, legislative director for the political advocacy group Indivisible. “Even a few weeks ago, the number of senators willing to take a vote like this would have been seemingly zero.”
Israel receives billions of dollars a year in aid from the United States, making it the world’s largest recipient of U.S. security assistance. Following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, President Joe Biden asked Congress to approve an additional $14 billion in aid to the country, where more than 24,000 Palestinians have been killed in the retaliatory war against Gaza. Ta.
Sanders’ resolution builds on the Foreign Assistance Act, which allows the U.S. government to provide security assistance to governments that commit “a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” It is forbidden to do so. Section 502B(c) of the law gives Congress the power to request information about countries’ human rights practices, and Sanders used that to force the vote.
“The senators who voted to support this resolution did so despite tremendous political pressure,” O’Neill said, adding that the senators who voted to support this resolution did so in the face of tremendous political pressure. He pointed out that the current situation exists. “The 502B process has never been used before, but now that tool is on the table. These are lonely votes, but they are votes that could be the start of something bigger.”
vote in Support for the Sanders resolution came almost entirely from Democratic senators: LaFonza Butler of California, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Maisie Hirono of Hawaii, and Ben of New Mexico. – Ray Lujan, Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Jeff Markley and Chris Van Hollen of Oregon, Peter Welch of Maryland and Peter Welch of Vermont. Rand Paul was the only Republican to vote against the resolution.
Van Hollen told The Intercept that it was important for the Senate to have the information it needed for the draft report. “It’s important for transparency and I think taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being used.”
“Prime Minister Netanyahu needs to understand that he is not receiving a blank check from the United States Congress,” Warren told reporters ahead of the vote.
She continued: “The Senate has played a role in overseeing our military engagements abroad dating back to the drafting of the Constitution. We need to stand up now and take stock of how Prime Minister Netanyahu and his right-wing war cabinet are pursuing this war. Given the circumstances, there is a responsibility to say that there are serious questions that we must ask before proceeding.”
Some Democratic senators who voted to kill the resolution told The Intercept that they are concerned about human rights abuses by Israel but do not believe Sanders’ proposal is the way to address them. Others, mostly Republicans, deflected from questions about Israel’s actions during the war.
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pennsylvania; He said he opposes the resolution because the Congressional timeline for action conflicts with Israel’s war objectives. “It doesn’t make much sense to condition military operations carried out by allies,” he said. “If there is any doubt, there is no doubt that it will be subject to scrutiny and consideration,” he said, but added that he did not think the resolution was the right approach.
Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware points out that 502B(c) has never been used in its 50-year history and that 502B(c) would prefer 502B(c) to be used. and explained their opposition to this resolution. measurement Introduced by Van Hollen. The amendment would require weapons received under Mr. Biden’s additional aid proposal for Israel and Ukraine to be used in accordance with U.S. law, international humanitarian law, and the laws of armed conflict.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has a history of scrutinizing human rights abuses by U.S. allies, voted against the resolution. He told The Intercept that while he supports Israel’s right to defend itself and has deep concerns about the way Israel conducts operations, he would not support any measures that “could cut off funding to Israel.” Told. He said the resolution is a way to cut off aid to Israel completely. “I don’t think that’s the right thing for Congress to do at this point,” he said.
Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) told The Intercept that he is “sensitive” to allegations of human rights abuses by Israel and “understands Mr. Sanders’ sensitivity to limiting collateral damage.” Told. Be there for that. Still, referring to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and Israel’s stated objective of eradication, he said, “How did this resolution begin? “I opposed the resolution because I think it would draw attention away from what is not,” he said. outside the organization.
Asked whether he thought Israel was doing enough to reduce civilian casualties, Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida told The Intercept, “Israel is trying to eliminate all members of Hamas. “There is a need to kill, and anyone who dies in Gaza is Hamas’s fault.” He voted against the resolution.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana) cited Hamas’ attacks on Israel when explaining his opposition to the resolution. “Giving them a break would mean allowing them to do it again,” he told The Intercept. Asked whether Israel was doing enough to protect civilians, Cassidy reiterated a point the Israeli government has often made about Hamas, saying, “If you build a tunnel, you’re creating a difficult environment.” This is to prevent civilian casualties. ”
During his vote against the resolution, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) told The Intercept that his position on the issue remains consistent. Asked if he was concerned about the number of casualties in Gaza, he said: “Of course I am.” Asked whether Israel was doing enough to mitigate casualties, he simply replied, “Good talk,” as the Senate elevator doors closed.
