Washington sent a reassuring signal to Israel and its supporters this week: it will not sell out Israel in the waning days of US President Joe Biden’s tenure.

That assurance came across clearly in two pivotal moves. First, the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Wednesday calling for an unconditional ceasefire in Gaza without tying it to Hamas’s release of hostages.

Second, the White House lobbied Democratic senators to vote Wednesday against three Bernie Sanders-initiated resolutions aimed at restricting arms sales to Israel.

Those resolutions were roundly defeated—79-18, 78-19, and 80-17—and the growing number of Democrats voting for measures detrimental to Israel is notable.

But why was there any concern in the first place that Biden might abandon Israel in the twilight of his presidency? Simple: historical precedent.

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a press conference regarding legislation that would block offensive U.S. weapons sales to Israel, with Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Peter Welch (D-VT) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., November 19, 2024. (credit: REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz)
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a press conference regarding legislation that would block offensive U.S. weapons sales to Israel, with Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Peter Welch (D-VT) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., November 19, 2024. (credit: REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz)
In December 2016, during the lame-duck period between Donald Trump’s election and inauguration, then US president Barack Obama ordered the US to abstain – and in effect let pass – UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which called for an end to settlements in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem.

This one-sided and highly critical resolution stated that the settlements constituted a “flagrant violation” of international law and have no legal validity. It has been the basis, ever since, for boycott attempts against Israel and for moves at the International Criminal Court in The Hague and elsewhere to delegitimize the settlements.

The Obama administration’s decision to allow that resolution to pass, even though President-elect Trump at that time made clear his adamant opposition, was widely perceived in Jerusalem as a result of a bellyful of frustration the outgoing administration had with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In addition, the administration felt free to take this highly controversial step during the three-month lame-duck period because it would not have to pay any political price.

Biden, too, has had his frustrations over the last four years with Netanyahu and Israeli policies, from the prosecution of the war in Gaza to broader strategic issues. This fueled speculation that over the next two months he might want to “pull an Obama” and take a parting shot at Jerusalem on his way out the door. At least, that was the fear.

But the US veto on Wednesday showed that fear was unfounded.

Calls for a permanent ceasefire

The resolution, supported by each of the 14 other members of the Security Council, called for an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, along with the immediate and unconditional release of all the hostages. It did not, however, make the ceasefire conditional on the release of the hostages, which is why Israel was adamantly opposed and the US vetoed.

“A durable end to the war must come with the release of the hostages,” US Deputy Ambassador to the UN Robert Wood said. “These two urgent goals are inextricably linked. This resolution abandoned that necessity, and for that reason, the United States could not support it.”

This veto contrasted with the US abstention in June on another UN Security Council resolution that called for a ceasefire but conditioned it on a hostage release and a resolution in March that called for a temporary ceasefire for Ramadan.

Had the language of this week’s resolution been similar to that of June, the US might have abstained. However, Russia and China opposed any efforts to word the resolution in this manner, in an apparent effort to isolate the US diplomatically.

US Senate voted down resolutions 

ON WEDNESDAY, the same day the US vetoed the Security Council resolution, the US Senate voted down three resolutions led by Sanders, and co-sponsored by senators Peter Welch (Vermont), Jeff Merkley (Oregon), and Chris Van Hollen (Maryland) – all four known as stalwart critics of Israel – that would have embargoed future arms sales to Israel, including replenishing tank shells whose delivery date is three years down the line, replenishing mortar shells that would be delivered in some 18 months, and the sale of Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bomb guidance kits that turn “dumb” bombs into precision-guided ones.

The White House, which during the current war has periodically slow-walked or held up the supply of certain arms to Israel, made clear to Senate Democrats that it was opposed to Sanders’s initiative.

“These resolutions are particularly untimely and counterproductive as we are working to secure a ceasefire in Lebanon,” read one of the talking points the White House gave Democratic senators.

“US officials are in Beirut now working to finalize this deal – a deal that is only possible because of the military pressure Hezbollah is under. Disapproving arms purchases for Israel at this moment would jeopardize those talks and put wind in the sails of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas at the worst possible moment.”

Though it was clear from the outset that these “resolutions of disapproval” would fail, the voting was watched carefully to see to what degree it would be affected by the results of the presidential election three weeks ago. This was the first time ever that Congress voted on barring arms to Israel.

In the postmortem after the drubbing the Democrats took in the presidential election, one argument that gained traction is that the Democrats’ loss could be partly attributed to the progressive wing of the party pulling it too far to the Left, including on Israel-related issues, thereby alienating mainstream America, which is broadly more moderate and pro-Israel.

Pro-Israel Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres tweeted a poll on Monday showing that 62% of Americans disagree with the progressive views on Israel and Hamas, and said that “the progressive movement’s hatred for Israel is deeply unpopular. So unpopular that it is underwater by 62 percentage points.”

In an earlier tweet regarding Sanders’s resolution, Torres wrote: “The United States Congress will overwhelmingly reject any attempt to defund and disarm Israel as the Jewish state fights for its security and survival. Despite the noise of the far Left, Israel Derangement Syndrome remains the fringe rather than the mainstream of American politics.”

It may be on the fringe of American politics, but 17-19 senators out of 55 Democrats and Independents voting for the measure is about one-third of the Democrats in the outgoing Senate – not exactly a fringe. A fringe would be the 10 Democrats and Independents, and one Republican, who voted for another anti-Israel resolution that Sanders, who is Jewish, sponsored in January.

Two other Jewish senators, of the eight Jews in the Senate - Hawaii’s Brian Schatz and Georgia’s Jon Ossoff - voted for the resolutions, though Ossoff voted against the resolution that would block the sale of JDAMS to Israel.

Ossoff is up for reelection in November 2026, as are four other senators who voted for the resolution, including Illinois’s Dick Durbin. Ossoff was narrowly elected to the Senate in 2020 by a 50,000 vote margin, and his voting record on Israel will surely be carefully scrutinized during his reelection bid by many of the state’s estimated 140,000 Jews.

Although the vast majority of Democrats and all Republicans in the chamber voted against the resolution – highlighting strong bipartisan commitment for military aid to Israel – that a third of the Democrats supported it indicates that hopes for the election results to tone down some of the critical voices on Israel within Congress are misplaced.

This outcome signals that divisions over Israel will remain a significant fault line within the Democratic Party as it works to regroup and rebuild after its recent loss of the presidency and both chambers of Congress.And the Republicans will definitely take advantage of that rift – a rift that explains why Jews, according to a couple of polls and various analyses of precincts with heavy Jewish populations, voted this time for Trump in significantly higher numbers than they did in 2020.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (South Dakota) alluded to Sanders’s resolutions this week and reassured Israel and Jewish voters that “reinforcements” are on the way.

“It’s been over 13 months since Hamas terrorists waged war against Israel, and for the past year plus, Democrats have struggled to support our ally Israel and have literally fractured the Democratic Party,” Thune said. “For example, we are expecting tomorrow Sen. Sanders to offer a resolution denying lethal aid to Israel."

“The refusal to have our ally’s back and the hesitation to call out antisemitism in our own country has consequences. It enables bad behavior and bad actors around the world and encourages others to abandon Israel in their time of need.”

Thune said he had this message to Israel and Jews around the world: “Reinforcements are on the way. Senate Republicans reclaim the majority in six weeks, and when we do, we will make clear that the US Congress stands squarely in Israel’s corner.”

As reassuring as this message is, the fact that a third of the Democrats voted against Israel is cause for concern, especially since control of the Senate swings back and forth. Granted, those Democrats who voted to bar arms sales are a distinct minority in the current minority party, but looking ahead, it is a trend that Israel and its supporters in the US will need to work hard to reverse.