On Wednesday, Sanders introduced six resolutions blocking six sales of different weapons contained within the $20 billion weapons deal announced by the Biden administration in August. The sales include many of the types of weapons that Israel has used in its relentless campaign of extermination in Gaza over the past year.

“Sending more weapons is not only immoral, it is also illegal. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act lay out clear requirements for the use of American weaponry – Israel has egregiously violated those rules,” said Sanders. “There is a mountain of documentary evidence demonstrating that these weapons are being used in violation of U.S. and international law.”

This will be the first time in history that Congress has ever voted on legislation to block a weapons sale to Israel, as the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project pointed out. This is despite the U.S. having sent Israel over $250 billion in military assistance in recent decades, according to analyst Stephen Semler, as Israel has carried out ethnic cleansings and massacres across Palestine and in Lebanon.

The resolutions are not likely to pass; even if they did pass the heavily pro-Israel Congress, they would likely be vetoed by President Joe Biden, who has been insistent on sending weapons to Israel with no strings attached.

However, Sanders’s move is in line with public opinion. Polls have consistently found that the majority of the public supports an end to Israel’s genocide; a poll by the Institute for Global Affairs released this week found, for instance, that a majority of Americans think the U.S. should stop supporting Israel or make support contingent on Israeli officials’ agreement to a ceasefire deal. This includes nearly 80 percent of Democrats.

  • lobut@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Excuse me, we had to go with the obvious choice that would win /s

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 month ago

      I won a porterhouse from a steakhouse over Hilary losing.

      I’d rather I hadn’t won. The bet was made in primary season, and that Hilary would get the nomination and lose the election. (There was a second part that said if Bernie won the nomination he’d be POTUS)

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’d eat a hundred well-done steaks from Denny’s topped with ketchup if it meant we didn’t have to deal with Trump again.

    • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m in tinfoil hat territory, but it’s logical that Hillary was promised the Sec State position and superdelegate support for conceding to Obama and not making it a convention fight. It explains why the r’s only attacked her for 8 years outside Obama, they knew they didn’t have to attack any other potential candidate.

      • lobut@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        I don’t think that’s tinfoil hat at all. I mean it seems like a very logical explanation and the same thoughts I had when I was watching it happen.

        I still remember when Hillary went to Obama before conceding and most were speculating it was going to be about a cabinet position and her running after Obama did.