Human Rights Mean Nothing If Congress Funds Their Destruction
On March 21, 2026, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz announced that “all houses and villages near the Lebanese border will be destroyed, in accordance with the model used in Rafah and Beit Hanoun in Gaza.” One of the armaments needed to accomplish that destruction is the D9 armored bulldozer. This American made weapon has been used repeatedly by the IDF to demolish Palestinian homes and infrastructure displacing and killing thousands of people.
Throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories, southern Lebanon, and southern Syria the D9 is a symbol of destruction. This week, Congress has a new opportunity to show that it has learned from its mistakes in providing unconditional support for Israel, to change course, and stand for human rights.
As more information emerges about Israel’s actions across the occupied Palestinian territories, southern Lebanon, and southern Syria, the number of American leaders willing to offer unconditional support is shrinking. More lawmakers increasingly recognize that the cycles of violence devastating the region are rooted in the denial of Palestinian self-determination.
A New Hope
Two Joint Resolutions of Disapproval on weapons sales to Israel are expected to come to a vote in the coming days.
S.J.Res. 32, blocking the transfer of D9 Caterpillar armored bulldozers
S.J.Res. 138, blocking the transfer of 12,000 BLU-110A/B 1,000-pound bomb bodies
Both resolutions were introduced and forced to the floor by Senator Bernie Sanders.
These are tools already central to the destruction of Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian civilian life.
The $295 million D9 sale, financed through Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and therefore paid for by American taxpayers, would deepen U.S. complicity in one of the most visible instruments of forced displacement. Israeli forces have repeatedly used D9 bulldozers to demolish Palestinian homes in the occupied West Bank, often as acts of collective punishment prohibited under international law.
In southern Lebanon, destruction increasingly resembles the early stages of Gaza after October 7. Military operations have already displaced more than 600,000 people south of the Litani River, while villages face systematic destruction. Reports and public statements from Israeli officials warning that homes south of the Litani will be demolished only reinforce fears of permanent depopulation and occupation.
The $151.8 million BLU-110A/B sale is equally alarming. These high-impact munitions are designed for large blast and fragmentation effects and have routinely been used by Israel in dense urban environments, where their destructive radius dramatically increases the risk of mass civilian casualties and widespread infrastructure collapse.
More troubling still, the emergency certification allows the United States to transfer some of these bombs directly from U.S. military stockpiles, again at taxpayer expense.
At a moment when the United States is already directly involved in hostilities with Iran, transferring bombs from American stocks to facilitate Israeli strikes does not merely implicate Washington politically. It strains U.S. readiness while outsourcing escalation to a regional actor whose war aims are increasingly diverging from those of the United States.
American Interests and Israeli War Aims Are Not the Same
Supporters of these transfers often argue that blocking them risks dragging American troops deeper into the conflict.
The opposite is closer to the truth.
Providing these bulldozers and bombs endangers American troops and undermines U.S. national interests.
The United States has publicly framed its objectives around de-nuclearization, regional deterrence, and ending support for armed proxy groups, while increasingly backing away from earlier rhetoric around regime change.
Israel’s political and military leadership, by contrast, appears committed to a broader strategy of permanent destabilization: a weakened Iran, occupation in southern Lebanon, expansion into southern Syria, and continued settler violence and indiscriminate bombing in the West Bank and Gaza regardless of humanitarian cost.
That divergence matters because when Israeli escalation produces retaliation from Iran, Hezbollah, or regional militias, it is often American troops, bases, shipping lanes, and diplomatic assets that absorb the consequences.
If U.S. military leaders identify an Iranian missile site as a threat, that responsibility can be handled by the United States Air Force. It does not need to be outsourced to an Israeli campaign that has often prioritized assassinations and attacks on oil infrastructure over de-escalation.
In practical terms, continuing these weapons transfers risks creating the conditions for escalating direct American military involvement in a war whose escalation logic is increasingly driven by Israeli interests rather than U.S. national security priorities.
A Test of Consistency
This is where politics become especially important.
Many senators previously voted for earlier joint resolutions of disapproval and have since publicly called for de-escalation, humanitarian pauses, or a ceasefire. These new votes are the clearest opportunity to prove those positions were not symbolic. If a senator previously supported JRDs aimed at restricting offensive transfers, supported a war powers resolution, or argued that Congress must reclaim its constitutional role in questions of war, then a yes vote here is the most logically and politically consistent position available.
The Senate cannot simultaneously claim to oppose regional war while approving the bulldozers that flatten civilian communities and the bombs that make cities unlivable.
That contradiction is no longer sustainable.
The Floor Vote Matters Beyond the Outcome
Even if these resolutions face overwhelming opposition, floor consideration still matters.
These votes are about more than immediate passage. They shape congressional and public debate over whether U.S. policy should continue underwriting attacks on Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and now Iran.
Every additional vote in favor helps establish the political foundation for future veto-proof majorities and signals to the public that the bipartisan consensus behind unconditional weapons transfers is collapsing.
This is how policy change happens: first through dissent, then through coalition, and eventually through majorities.
