'Things need to change': Senate Democrats sharpen criticism of Israel as humanitarian concerns grow
More Democrats in the upper chamber than ever before voted alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to halt the $675 million sale of thousands of bombs and guidance kits for the bombs and to block the sale of automatic rifles to Israel.
Sanders' push ultimately failed late last month, but over half of all Senate Democrats voted alongside him, with many voting with him for the first time. Meanwhile, all Senate Republicans voted against them.
"The tide is turning," Sanders, who routinely caucuses with Democrats, said in a statement. "The American people do not want to spend billions to starve children in Gaza. The Democrats are moving forward on this issue, and I look forward to Republican support in the near future."
Getting Republicans on board for future attempts, as Sanders hoped would happen, is a stretch at best.
"Republicans stand with Israel," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Jim Risch, R-Idaho, told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"Senator Sanders' resolution to block arms sales would have reinstated the failed policies of the Biden administration and would abandon America's closest ally in the Middle East," he continued. "We can't afford to go back there."
But the change within the Democratic caucus was likely spurred by the release of photos of starving children in the Gaza Strip, which earned shocked reactions from both lawmakers and President Donald Trump.
Many Democrats have pinned the blame on Israel and argued that the Jewish state has put a chokehold on aid that is meant for civilians in Gaza, while Republicans contend that the terrorist organization Hamas is stealing the food.
"What's going on is unacceptable, and Israel has the power to fix it," Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, told Fox News Digital.
Like Sanders, King typically caucuses with Senate Democrats. But unlike his fellow Independent colleague, he has routinely stood firm in his support of Israel. But the photos and reports of widespread malnutrition prompted him to vote to block arms sales.
"Israel's the one that's not letting the aid get in," he said. "The humanitarian response is entirely within Israel's hands, and they've been blocking, slowing, starting and stopping, to the point where I just could no longer stand silent."
And like King, Sen. Jean Shaheen, the top ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, changed course and voted in favor of blocking arms sales out of concern that food aid was not making its way to Palestinians.
"I think it's important to send the message to Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and his government that things need to change," the New Hampshire Democrat said in an interview with PBS Newshour.
But Republicans charged that it was not Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's fault that food aid was not making its way into Gaza, and instead believed that it was Hamas stealing the food.
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said that Israel wants to make sure that the food aid actually makes it to civilians in Hamas.
"Israel and the US have cut out, cut off most of Hamas' cash flow," Kennedy said. "And a lot of their cash flows depends on stealing the food and selling it, sometimes to their own people, absorbing the prices."
And not every Senate Democrat is on the same page when it comes to their position on the Jewish State.
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., has routinely slammed Democrats for criticizing Israel, and believed that his party was moving further away from his position.
"What I really fundamentally believe, there's been a wholesale shift, even within my party, to blame Israel for the situations and the circumstances overall," Fetterman told Fox News Digital. "And I don't really understand. It's like we've seen the same pictures and, of course, what's happened in Gaza is devastating."
"But so, for me, I blame Hamas and Iran," he continued. "And I don't know why there's not like a collective global outrage."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
Why in the world is Trump punishing Moldova with tariffs?
President Trump's tariff blasts continue. The White House released its latest list on July 31 and it is clear that no nation is safe — not allies, enemies, neighbors or distant lands. No menacing power escapes the vigilance of the president's team, ever alert to those 'ripping off' the United States of America. Case in point: Moldova. Dominating both sides of the Dniester River — well, one side actually — this Eastern European colossus of 2.3 million people (about the size of Houston) could inflict mortal damage on the American economy. In 2024 alone, the U.S. bought nearly $136 million (with an 'm') worth of goods from the Moldovans, whereas they bought only $51 million from us. With the U.S. economy valued at more than $30 trillion (with a 'T') we could probably only bear such abuse for … well, forever. In a July 9 letter to Moldovan President Maia Sandu, Trump made clear that America will not be bullied by Moldova any longer. He imposed a tariff of 25 percent on every bottle of wine or fruit juice the Moldovans force us to buy. Calling the deficit with Moldova a 'major threat to our Economy and, indeed, our National Security!' the president warned of even higher tariffs if Moldova retaliates or tries to send goods into the U.S. through transshipment. The letter accuses Moldova of taking advantage of us for 'many years.' Tariff rates are one of Trump's favorite weapons, employed under the dubious premise that the U.S. faces a trade deficit 'emergency.' The legality of such action aside — the Supreme Court has yet to rule — the president uses this weapon for a variety of non-economic goals. He has threatened Canada for indicating it might recognize a Palestinian state, and Brazil to try to save former President Jair Bolsonaro from prosecution. Moldova has committed no such offenses — at least none charged — but Trump wants trade with Moldova and a host of other countries to be based on 'reciprocity.' Whatever the precipitating dynamics, punishing Moldova for its involvement in international trade serves no reasonable Western security or broader policy interests. It undermines them. Sandwiched between Ukraine and Romania, Moldova has a long history of not being a country. The people of this region, who were unwillingly traded between Romania and Russia for nearly a century, gained independence from a collapsing Soviet Union in 1991. With a population that is 75 percent Moldovan-Romanian, some within the Russian and Ukrainian minorities feared the country's absorption into neighboring Romania. During a brief internal war in 1992, Moscow positioned a 'peacekeeping force' on the eastern side of Dniester River to guard the self-proclaimed state of Transnistria — which is still there, not recognized even by Russia. This force is small, locally recruited and considered less than formidable. But it is part of a sustained campaign by Moscow to prevent Moldova from embracing the West. This same motive drove Vladimir Putin to unleash a brutal invasion and occupation of much larger Ukraine. If victorious there, he is unlikely to be more accommodating toward Moldova. Moldova is the poorest country in Europe, and its elected leaders and population have been seeking stability. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Moldova applied to join the EU. It was quickly granted candidate status, and negotiations for membership began. In 2024, the country reelected pro-EU President Sandu and in a referendum enshrined the country's 'European course' in its constitution — despite massive Russian interference and disinformation. The EU has not been cowed by Moscow and developed a generous aid and development package. Most Moldovan goods enter the world's largest trading bloc duty-free, a policy that was further extended to agricultural products last month. Under President Biden, the U.S. had been similarly supportive, providing more than $400 million in military and humanitarian aid in part to help reduce the country's dependence on Russian gas. Trump sees no need for aid to Moldova, or indeed for most foreign assistance. Other moves supporting Trump's 'America First' orientation also penalize Moldova. Eliminating the U.S. Agency for International Development meant the loss of virtually all projects in Moldova — including for democracy promotion and economic and energy development. At the same time, cutting resources for election monitoring and an independent press leaves the field open for Russian interference. Such indifference, along with Trump's shifting attitude toward Ukraine and transactional foreign policy, leaves Moldova exposed. A study by the Stimson Center concluded, 'With a White House that seems increasingly eager to align its perspectives with Moscow at the expense of traditional allies, its willingness to support Moldova's democratic transformation in the face of Russian opposition is now uncertain.' Neighboring Romania, a member of both the EU and NATO, has a huge stake in the fate of Moldova. An intimidated or occupied satellite country — a second Belarus — on the Alliance's more than 400-mile border would dramatically change the strategic equation. This should get Washington's attention — at least of those willing to honor the American commitment to NATO. Preserving an independent and economically healthy Moldova thus serves European and American interests. Increasing the cost of doing business with the U.S. and damaging democratic efforts there does not. Supporting Moldova costs the U.S. very little. Excusing a tiny trade deficit to a strategically important democracy does not make Americans suckers. Helping Moldova does not require a military commitment. The country has been cooperating with NATO but is constitutionally neutral. Rather than punishing the country, the U.S. could and should offer support. This could be based on a view of the geopolitical map — or, even better, from an appreciation of a resilient people's desire for democratic choice. Ronald H. Linden is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pittsburgh, where he directed the Center for European Studies and the Center for Russian and East European Studies.
The Intercept
13 minutes ago
- The Intercept
DNC Leadership Pressured Gen Z Member to Kill Resolution on Banning Arms to Israel
When it comes to Israel's handling of the war on Gaza, Democrats are nearly united. Only 8 percent of party members support Israel's military actions, according to a Gallup poll from last month. A vote at the Democratic National Committee meeting later this month could once again expose the yawning rift between the party's base and its leaders, who are lining up to oppose a resolution against arms for Israel. Allison Minnerly, the 26-year-old committee member sponsoring the measure, told The Intercept Thursday that Democratic leaders risk further alienating party members — especially young voters — if they kill the symbolic resolution. 'Our voters, our base, they are saying that they do not want U.S. dollars to enable further death and starvation anywhere across the world, particularly in Gaza,' said Minnerly, a first-term DNC member from Florida. 'I don't think it should be a hard decision for us to say that clearly.' Minnerly's resolution has reopened a simmering debate in the party's top ranks over the war. In August 2024, Democratic National Convention delegates approved on a carefully worded platform that backed giving Israel a 'qualitative military edge' while pursuing a two-state solution and a 'durable end to the war in Gaza.' The party platform outraged the delegates with the Uncommitted movement who had hoped to pressure Vice President Kamala Harris into breaking with President Joe Biden and supporting an arms embargo on Israel. The pressure from rank-and-file party members has only grown in response to the unfolding famine in Gaza. In a first, most Senate Democrats voted last month in favor of a resolution to block offensive arms sales to Gaza. Those Democrats, many of them senior citizens, were catching up with the sentiment of younger voters regardless of party. In February 2024, only 16 percent of adults under 30 supported giving military aid to Israel versus 56 percent of people 65 and older, according to a Pew Research Center poll. Minnerly's proposed resolution cites the Senate vote and public polls in calling on Democratic elected officials to support an immediate ceasefire, enact an arms embargo, suspend military aid, and recognize Palestine as a state. After Minnerly put forward her resolution on August 4, she said, representatives of DNC Chair Ken Martin reached out to propose a compromise. But the proposal they offered did not go far enough in calling for pressure on Israel, she said. 'Ultimately it was clear to me the conversation they're having is different from the reality today,' she said. In response to Minnerly's resolution, Martin and other party leaders have offered one of their own that largely mirrors the 2024 party platform and does not call for the suspension of military aid to Israel, according to a copy obtained by The Intercept and reports from multiple outlets. (The DNC did not respond to a request for comment.) Pro-Israel Democratic groups have come out swinging against Minnerly's resolution, focusing on its lack of language condemning Hamas and calling for the language to include the release of Israeli hostages. 'Should it advance, it will further divide our Party, provide a gift to Republicans, and send a signal that will embolden Israel's adversaries. As we get closer to the midterms, Democrats need to be united, not continuing intra-party fights that don't get us closer to taking back Congress,' said Brian Romick, the head of Democratic Majority for Israel, a pro-Israel group aligned with right-wing groups that get Republican funding. Minnerly said the resolution focuses on Israel because that is where the U.S. has leverage. 'The U.S. government directly interacts with the Israeli government,' she said. 'We do not have a direct line of communication with Hamas, or the ability to necessarily influence their decisions.' Read our complete coverage Minnerly's resolution is co-sponsored by DNC members from Maine, California, and Florida, according to a copy she shared with The Intercept. Still, that support pales in comparison to the influential party members who lined up behind the Martin-backed resolution. Minnerly acknowledged that winning the vote would be a 'challenge.' 'I am optimistic that people are willing and open to have this conversation. It's just going to take political courage,' she said. A DNC committee is set to vote August 26 on the competing resolutions, Minnerly said. Regardless of which symbolic resolution the DNC supports, individual elected officials will be free to vote how they choose in Congress or elsewhere. Still, Matt Duss, a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, said 'the position of the DNC does matter. It sets the tone for the entire party.' 'I look at these two resolutions, and the first one is simply just regurgitating the same old language used by the Biden administration. It's basically meaningless,' Duss said. 'What has been missing all along in the Democratic Party's approach is consequences for human rights abuses when Israel commits them.'
New York Post
13 minutes ago
- New York Post
DC sues to block Trump's ‘unlawful' takeover of police department as crackdown intensifies
The nation's capital sued to block President Donald Trump's takeover of its police department in court on Friday, hours after his administration escalated its intervention into the city's law enforcement by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department. District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb sought an emergency restraining order in the federal court lawsuit, which argues the Trump administration is going far beyond the president's legal powers. 'The administration's unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call D.C. home. This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,' Schwalb said. 5 The nation's capital sued to block President Trump's takeover of its police department in court on Friday. AP The lawsuit comes after Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi said Thursday night that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole will assume 'powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia Chief of Police.' The Metropolitan Police Department 'must receive approval from Commissioner Cole' before issuing any orders, Bondi said. It was unclear where the move left the city's current police chief, Pamela Smith, who works for the mayor. Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser pushed back, writing on social media that 'there is no statute that conveys the District's personnel authority to a federal official.' The Justice Department declined to comment on the district's lawsuit, and a White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. Chief had agreed to share immigration information Schwalb had said late Thursday that Bondi's directive was 'unlawful,' arguing it could not be followed by the city's police force. 5 The lawsuit comes after AG Pam Bondi said Thursday night that DEA boss Terry Cole will assume 'powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia Chief of Police.' He wrote in a memo to Smith that 'members of MPD must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor,' setting up the legal clash between the heavily Democratic district and the Republican administration. The D.C. attorney general is an elected position that is the city's top legal officer and is separate from Washington's federal U.S. attorney, which is appointed by the president. The U.S. attorney general is also appointed by the president and not elected. 5 Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith speaks on Trump's plan to place Washington police under federal control and deploy National Guard troops, on Aug. 11, 2025. AP Bondi's directive came even after Smith had told MPD officers hours earlier to share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody, such as someone involved in a traffic stop or checkpoint. The Justice Department said Bondi disagreed with the police chief's directive because it allowed for continued enforcement of 'sanctuary policies,' which generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers. Bondi said she was rescinding that order as well as other MPD policies limiting inquiries into immigration status and preventing arrests based solely on federal immigration warrants. All new directives must now receive approval from Cole, the attorney general said. The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the U.S. illegally. It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city's homicide rate ranks below those of several other major U.S. cities, and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the administration has portrayed. Residents are seeing a significant show of force A population already tense from days of ramp-up has begun seeing more significant shows of force across the city. National Guard troops watched over some of the world's most renowned landmarks, and Humvees took position in front of the busy main train station. Volunteers helped homeless people leave long-standing encampments, to which was often unclear. Department of Homeland Security police stood outside Nationals Park during a game on Thursday between the Washington Nationals and the Philadelphia Phillies. DEA agents patrolled The Wharf, a popular nightlife area, while Secret Service officers were seen in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. Bowser, walking a tightrope between the Republican White House and the constituency of her largely Democratic city, was out of town Thursday for a family commitment in Martha's Vineyard but would be back Friday, her office said. 5 Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser (right) wrote on social media that 'there is no statute that conveys the District's personnel authority to a federal official.' AP The uptick in visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many high-traffic areas, has been striking to residents going about their lives. Trump has the power to take over federal law enforcement for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he'll re-evaluate as that deadline approaches. Officers set up a checkpoint in one of D.C.'s popular nightlife areas, drawing protests. Troops were stationed outside the Union Station transportation hub as the 800 Guard members who have been activated by Trump started on missions that include monument security, community safety patrols, and beautification efforts, the Pentagon said. 5 Members of the DEA and police patrol near Nationals Park after a baseball match at the Navy Yard after Trump's announcement of the federal takeover. REUTERS Troops will assist law enforcement in a variety of roles, including traffic control posts and crowd control, National Guard Major Micah Maxwell said. The Guard members have been trained in de-escalation tactics and crowd control equipment, Maxwell said. National Guard troops are a semi-regular presence in D.C., typically being used during mass public events like the annual July 4 celebration. They have regularly been used in the past for crowd control in and around Metro stations.
