More than 1 million people in Lebanon have reportedly been displaced from their homes as Israel continues to escalate its bombing campaign, which entered a new phase on Friday with the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Israeli airstrikes have decimated entire residential buildings in and outside Beirut, killing at least 136 people in the past 24 hours, according to Lebanese authorities.
As Israel reportedly plans an imminent “limited” invasion of southern Lebanon, it continues to also heavily bomb Gaza. Israeli airstrikes killed at least 28 people in the last day, according to Al Jazeera. Nearly one year into its indiscriminate assault on the besieged enclave, Israel has killed at least 41,500 people in Gaza and displaced roughly 1.9 million others.
Although President Joe Biden on Monday said that Israel should not enter Lebanon, his administration continues to provide the weapons and political support that have enabled Israel’s bombing campaign. On Thursday, Israel claimed to have secured $8.7 billion in military aid from the United States, $3.5 billion of which has already been sent. Reporting also suggests the 2,000-pound bomb that killed Nasrallah was U.S.-made — the same type of bomb the United States paused shipments of back in May.
Progressives, meanwhile, are ramping up their calls for the White House to take a stand when it comes to Israel’s escalation in the region, starting with a block on arms sales.
Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced legislation to block the sale of a combined $20 billion in offensive weapons to Israel. The Vermont senator previously called for the United States to stop sending bombs to Israel in March, while members of Congress including Reps. Cori Bush, D-Mo., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., have also called for an arms embargo. As Vice President Kamala Harris touted her support for a ceasefire in Gaza at the Democratic National Convention, protesters called for a “total arms embargo” against Israel, arguing that an end to the bombs is the only way to stop the violence.
“The United States must end its complicity in this atrocity,” Sanders wrote in a statement announcing the legislation.
Lawmakers won’t take up the resolutions until after the November election because Congress is out of session until then. Experts argue that the resolutions nonetheless send an important signal that Democrats and their allies want the Biden administration to take action to end U.S. complicity in Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza and Lebanon.
“The ultimate aim of this policy is to send a signal in the middle of the political campaign, at the height of the electoral debates, to say that, especially for the Democrats, this is now a serious issue,” said Siniša Vuković, director of the Global Policy program at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.
“Because let’s not forget, for the past few months, especially over the summer, the Democratic ticket was very much shaken by the burden of support for the Israeli offensive campaigns in Gaza,” Vuković continued, pointing to uncommitted voters who are withholding support from Harris after refusing to vote for Biden during this spring’s primary elections, citing the administration’s Israel policy.
“This is now bringing back that type of signal to the forefront of the political debate, and as such, in my opinion, it’s more mainly aimed at domestic consumption than even towards Israel.”
Sanders introduced six separate resolutions, some of which were co-sponsored by Sens. Peter Welch, D-Vt.; Jeff Merkley D-Ore.; and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. The resolutions would each block different types of weapons sales to Israel — including the sale of Joint Direct Attack Munitions, which turn un-guided or “dumb” bombs into precision-guided missiles, and new F-15IA fighter jets.
Even if the resolutions were to pass, an arms embargo would not have an immediate impact on the war, Vuković said, “because Israel is not really running low on supplies.” In other words, the legislation “is more about signaling the scope and the purpose of American support for Israel.”
Regardless of battlefield impact, an arms embargo would also carry moral and political weight, humanitarian experts told The Intercept.
“I do believe that the U.S. suspending the transfer of arms [would send] a significant message to the government of Israel that its conduct is inconsistent with international law, and the U.S. will not risk complicity with that,” said Amanda Klasing, national director of government relations and advocacy at Amnesty International USA. “Right now, all the U.S. has done is have words; we just have not seen action to really push the government of Israel to adhere to tenets of international law.”
An investigation from Amnesty International found that U.S.-made munitions and components were used in at least four unlawful attacks by Israeli forces that killed and injured dozens of Palestinian civilians. In their report, researchers found that none of these cases had been in or around military targets, and that many of the people who were killed were children.
“What we have seen time and time again is that U.S.-origin weapons are being used inconsistent with international law and potentially in war crimes,” said Klasing. “And the U.S. has to make a calculus whether or not it actually believes in an international legal system to protect civilians or not, and right now, it is sending a message to the world … that it is not going to hold security partners to account for the way they use their U.S.-origin weapons.”
Sarah Yager, Washington director at Human Rights Watch, said that aside from the very clear cut moral obligations of the United States, there’s also a strategic argument for refusing to provide additional weapons to Israel.
“The rule of law is something that the United States has said that it stands forever since its founding,” Yager said, “and the United States currently is breaking its own laws by supporting Israel with weapons, that has an extraordinarily long-term impact.”