A growing number of Democratic senators are challenging US arms sales to Israel as it wages what the article describes as a genocidal war in Gaza. The effort has been led in Congress by a small group of Democratic and independent lawmakers who have long spoken out for Palestinians, including members of “the squad”.
After nearly two years of war, their calls to restrict military support for Israel are drawing wider backing. That shift became visible in late July, when the Senate voted on two measures introduced by Bernie Sanders and his colleagues. Both failed, but more than half of Senate Democrats supported one of them. Does the vote mark a lasting change in the party’s position, or a response to the catastrophe in Gaza?

Israeli attacks, American weapons

The US is one of Israel’s largest arms suppliers. Israel’s arms sales reached a record $14.8bn in 2024, surpassing the previous record of $13bn in 2023, according to its defence ministry. In the 12 months after the war began on 7 October 2023, Israel received an estimated $17.9bn in US military aid. Analysts believe the publicly reported figure understates the total.

US military sales and assistance to Israel since 7 October have included air defence systems, precision-guided munitions, artillery shells, tank rounds, Hellfire missiles used by drones, and single-use shoulder-fired rockets.

Since returning to the White House in 2025, Donald Trump has sought to accelerate the supply of heavy weapons to Israel despite objections in Congress. In February, he bypassed Congress to speed up military sales worth $12bn, including 2,000-pound explosives that his predecessor, Joe Biden, had withheld over fears they could be used indiscriminately against Palestinian civilians. His administration also moved quickly to provide Israel with advanced THAAD defence systems amid the 12-day war with Iran.

The US has faced growing accusations from human rights advocates that it is directly implicated in the genocide in Gaza, rather than acting merely as a mediator or strategic ally. At the same time, supporters of the Palestinian cause have continued to organise within Congress and the US government since 7 October 2023. Democratic and independent lawmakers, including Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Sanders, have sought to halt arms transfers to Israel and hold it accountable for its actions in Gaza.

Senators have several means of challenging arms sales and military aid to Israel. They can introduce joint resolutions for a vote, seek reviews by the executive and legislative branches, and propose conditions or restrictions on the use of US-supplied weapons to prevent their deployment against civilians.

Sanders’ resolutions and the July vote

Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, joined Democratic senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Peter Welch of Vermont in introducing two measures to halt weapons supplies to Israel. Both came to a Senate vote in late July. Although both failed, an unprecedented number of Democratic senators supported them: 27 backed the measure to block assault rifles, more than half the chamber’s Democrats, while 24 voted to block explosives shipments.

The assault-rifle measure was defeated by 70 votes to 27, and the explosives measure by 73 to 24. Even in defeat, the level of Democratic support marked a shift within a party historically committed to Israel’s security. The article attributes that shift to Israel’s conduct during the war in Gaza.

The measures targeted a $675m shipment of US explosives and several shipments containing a total of 20,000 assault rifles. The proposed deals raise questions under the Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act, which place requirements on military assistance and arms sales relating to human rights and the delivery of US aid. The article argues that Netanyahu’s government is violating those requirements in Gaza.

Human rights reports, including investigations by Amnesty International, have documented the use of US-made explosives, particularly 1,000-pound bombs and JDAM munitions, in attacks on Palestinian civilians and civilian infrastructure, including UN schools. The reports describe violations of international and US law.

Those findings appeared as Israel’s arms exports to Europe reached new heights, even while it fought on multiple fronts. Europe accounted for 54 per cent of Israel’s military exports last year, according to a New York Times investigation. The contrast has prompted questions about the extent to which Israel needs US arms support for its wars in the region.

Sanders had tried to block arms shipments before, introducing similar measures in November 2024 and April 2025. His November effort won the support of no more than 19 Democratic senators; the April measure received 15 votes. This time, the vote came amid a severe famine in Gaza, which the article describes as a weapon of war used by Israel’s government.

The vote also came days after Gallup released polling in late July showing a sharp decline in American support for Israel. According to a report on the poll, 32 per cent of Americans and 8 per cent of Democrats supported Israel and favoured it over the Palestinians, compared with 71 per cent of Republicans who supported Netanyahu’s war in Gaza. It also found that 52 per cent of Americans viewed Netanyahu unfavourably, his highest level of disapproval since 1997.

Divisions within the Democratic Party

While 27 Democrats backed the assault-rifle measure, 19 Democratic senators joined Republicans in opposing it. They included Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. He had recently joined other Democrats in Congress in sending a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump’s regional envoy Witkoff, urging them to pursue an immediate ceasefire, end the war, stop the starvation and forced displacement of Palestinians, and secure the release of Israeli hostages.

Three Democratic senators backed the measure on assault rifles but opposed the one on explosives: Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sheldon Whitehouse, also of Rhode Island. Their split votes reflect competing pressures within the party. Democrats have condemned the starvation of civilians and expressed concern that rifles could reach security forces linked to Itamar Ben-Gvir, whom they regard as a violent extremist. Many also retain a longstanding commitment to Israel’s security and its claimed right to defend itself against rocket attacks from several fronts, alongside an interest in securing pro-Israel funding and support in future elections.

Three other Democrats — Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego of Arizona, and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan — did not vote on either measure. The votes were in part symbolic: either resolution would also have needed approval in the Republican-controlled House, and Trump has threatened to veto such measures if they passed both chambers. Nevertheless, 19 Democrats voted with Republicans against the first resolution. The article sees their votes as evidence of the continuing influence of pro-Israel pressure groups in Congress.

Four of the six young Democratic senators elected the previous year supported both measures; the other two were absent. Their votes suggest growing support for the Palestinian cause among younger Democrats, who appear more willing than their predecessors to question the party’s longstanding support for Israel.

No Republican senator supported either measure. Their united opposition aligned them with Netanyahu’s far-right government and the Trump administration, which says it seeks peace while continuing to supply arms for the war.

Lawmakers who opposed the measures stressed the importance of maintaining the US-Israel alliance and Israel’s right to defend its citizens against what they called “terrorist groups” such as Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. They argued that those parties, rather than Israel, had started the conflict. Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon was among those voting against the measures. Republican Senator Jim Risch of Idaho accused their sponsors of misleading the public and pushing Washington to abandon its closest ally in the Middle East.

A warning to Netanyahu or a change in policy?

The July votes mattered both for the increase in Democratic support and for the senators who joined it. Some had long supported Israel and opposed proposals to reduce Washington’s commitment to its security. Among them was Patty Murray of Washington, vice-chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Murray said the resolutions were an imperfect tool, but that it was time to say “no” to the suffering of innocent children and families. She added: “As a longtime friend and historic supporter of Israel, I am voting yes today to send a message to Netanyahu’s government that it cannot continue down this path. Netanyahu has prolonged the war all this time to stay in power.”

The committee positions held by some supporters could also give their votes wider significance. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, supported both measures. She affirmed Israel’s right to exist, defend itself and protect its citizens, but said she could not in good conscience support arms deals until the suffering in Gaza ended.

Shaheen had opposed Sanders’ April measure. In a PBS NewsHour interview, she said famine had been the biggest factor in her change of position. Asked whether the latest vote was a message to Netanyahu’s government or the start of a strategic shift in Democratic policy, she said it was too early to tell. Lawmakers should wait to see how the government responded, she said. She noted some improvement and promises from Israel, while saying more needed to be done and again referring to Israeli claims that Hamas steals aid entering Gaza.

Shaheen also said she had voted against the earlier measure partly because she hoped negotiations would succeed and wanted the hostages returned to their families. Those hopes had since collapsed. She said Israel bore some responsibility for events in Gaza, but avoided calling them genocide. The article compares her reluctance to use that term with the position taken by Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Trump loyalist.

Other lawmakers who usually support Israel explained their votes in similar terms. They directed their criticism chiefly at Netanyahu’s government and its conduct, presenting their support for the measures as a protest against his government rather than a withdrawal of support for Israel.

Democratic Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester said she could not in good conscience support any arms deal for Netanyahu’s government until Israel changed its policies in Gaza and the West Bank, addressed humanitarian needs, ended unjustified attacks and cooperated with the UN to end the war. Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock said that starving children and civilians was wrong and described the government’s actions as a moral crime incompatible with human dignity, rights and freedom. He voted for both measures.

Tammy Duckworth, another longstanding supporter of Israel who voted for both, invoked the word “enough”. She said ending the famine served not only Palestinians’ interests but also the long-term interests of Israel and the US.

A crack in the consensus?

Sanders offered a more optimistic reading of the vote. He said Democrats were finally responding to Americans who were tired of spending billions of dollars on an Israeli government that was starving children. In his view, the vote showed the tide turning against Netanyahu’s government and its war on Palestinians, which he described as horrific, illegal and immoral.

The Hill attributed the change in Democratic voting to Netanyahu’s policies and his government’s disregard for the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. The result had caused “a crack in the historic bipartisan consensus to support and protect Israel in Congress,” the newspaper said.

IfNotNow, a Jewish group that supports Palestinian rights, also called the vote historic. It criticised Democrats who joined Republicans in rejecting the resolutions. Its executive director, Morriah Kaplan, urged Americans to use every available means to lift the siege on Palestinians, end the famine and bring the hostages home.

Kevin Khrazyan, a policy adviser at the US group Demand Progress, sent a message on the eve of the vote:

“Not long ago, a vote by a handful of senators to limit arms transfers to Israel would have counted as a moral victory. Today, 27 senators voting against sending more weapons — more than half the Democratic caucus in the Senate — marks a political turning point. The days when politicians could look away from the atrocities in Gaza and continue handing the Israeli government a blank check are over. US weapons have enabled Israel to carry out its brutal assault on starving, besieged civilians in Gaza. The American people understood this long ago. Now the Senate is finally beginning to catch up. This fight is not over, but things are clearly starting to change. History will remember who used their power to confront injustice, and who helped sustain it. We will not stop holding them accountable.”

AIPAC welcomed the defeat of the resolutions but pointed to growing hostility towards Israel in Congress. With the midterm elections approaching, it said it needed more resources and political strength to defeat critics it believes are trying to take the contest over the US-Israel alliance from Congress to the ballot box.

The Times of Israel also raised concern about the rise from 15 to 27 senators supporting such measures. It linked the shift, which brought support to more than half of Senate Democrats, to damage to Israel’s image abroad as images of famine spread.

The vote may prove to be a warning to Netanyahu rather than a lasting change in US policy towards Israel. Yet Palestinian rights advocates argue that it opens the possibility of using restrictions on arms supplies to change conditions on the ground, and of building broader support for that approach over time. The Council on American-Islamic Relations called it a historic sign of progress for the Palestinian cause in Congress and said lawmakers were beginning to align with American public opinion.