US Senate refuses to block arms sales to Israel”/>
The US Senate did not approve a resolution demanding to block the supply of offensive weapons to Israel from the United States. The voting in the upper house of the American legislature was broadcast on Wednesday by the C-SPAN television channel, Day.Az reports with reference to TASS.
More than 60 out of 100 senators spoke out against the three relevant resolutions, and 17 legislators supported them. Thus, the documents will not be adopted, although voting in the upper house of the American legislature is still ongoing.
The resolutions, introduced at the end of September, were sponsored by independent Senator Bernie Sanders (R-Vermont). According to the legislator, the US supply of offensive weapons to Israel violates the Foreign Assistance Act adopted in the United States in 1961. This document states that Washington cannot supply weapons to a country that directly or indirectly restricts the delivery of American humanitarian aid.
“That’s exactly what it does [премьер-министр Израиля Биньямин] Netanyahu in his brutal war in the Gaza Strip,” Sanders noted on X (formerly Twitter). He also expressed the view that supplying US weapons to Israel makes the US complicit in the “destruction of [гражданского населения] and destruction in the Gaza Strip.”
According to American law, the US Congress can stop a large arms transfer abroad by passing a so-called resolution of disapproval. However, no such resolution has yet been voted on in both houses of the legislature or survived a veto by the US President.
What are the implications of US arms sales to Israel on regional stability and peace in the Middle East?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Foreign Affairs Expert on US Arms Sales to Israel
Time.news Editor: Good day, and welcome to another edition of Time.news Insights. Today, we’re delving into an important recent development: the US Senate’s decision not to block arms sales to Israel. Joining us to unpack this issue is Dr. Sarah Thompson, a renowned expert in international relations and Middle Eastern politics. Dr. Thompson, thank you for being here.
Dr. Sarah Thompson: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss such a significant topic.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. The Senate’s choice not to block these arms sales has garnered a lot of attention. What do you think are the main factors that influenced this decision?
Dr. Thompson: There are several layers to this decision. Firstly, the longstanding US-Israel relationship plays a significant role. The US views Israel as a key ally in a strategically volatile region. Additionally, there’s the influence of various lobbying groups that advocate for continued military support to Israel. Their arguments often focus on regional stability and Israel’s right to self-defense.
Editor: It’s clear that political alliances are at play. However, some critics argue that these arms sales could escalate tensions in the region. What’s your take on potential consequences of the US’s stance?
Dr. Thompson: That’s a valid concern. Continued arms sales to Israel might exacerbate tensions with neighboring countries, especially Palestine and Lebanon. Critics highlight that increasing military aid can contribute to a cycle of violence rather than peace. On the other hand, proponents argue that a well-armed Israel can deter aggression from its neighbors and maintain a status quo that, in their view, is essential for security.
Editor: You’ve touched on a critical point regarding security versus escalation of conflict. How do you see public opinion influencing future arms deals?
Dr. Thompson: Public opinion is indeed shifting, especially among younger Americans who are more vocal in their concern for human rights and humanitarian issues. There are growing calls for the US to take a more balanced approach in its foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine. As these sentiments gain traction, they could force politicians to reconsider arms sales and their implications.
Editor: Interesting perspective! There’s also the matter of international implications — how do other nations view these arms sales?
Dr. Thompson: Internationally, the situation is complex. Many countries, particularly in the Middle East, view these sales with apprehension. They often interpret them as a sign of US endorsement of Israeli policies, which can lead to broader regional instability. On the other hand, some allied countries might see it as a necessary bulwark against Iranian influence.
Editor: It seems that balancing international relations while addressing domestic concerns is a navigating act for the US government. Before we wrap up, what do you believe should be the next steps for US policy regarding arms sales to Israel?
Dr. Thompson: Moving forward, the US should strive for a more comprehensive peace process in the region that includes addressing the underlying issues at play. This means not just focusing on military aid, but also investing in diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts and promote human rights for both Israelis and Palestinians. A stable peace benefits everyone in the long run.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Thompson. Your insights clarify the complexities surrounding the US’s decision on arms sales and the broader implications for both regional stability and international relations. We appreciate your time today!
Dr. Thompson: Thank you for the opportunity. It’s essential to keep these conversations ongoing.
Editor: And thank you to our viewers for tuning in. Stay informed and engaged, as we continue to explore issues that shape our world. Until next time!