Last week, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a proposal from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders to place stricter conditions on U.S. military aid to Israel. The resolution would have mandated the State Department to file a report within thirty days on whether Israel has committed violations of human rights in its campaign in Gaza. It received only eleven votes in the Senate, with the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ben Cardin, calling the resolution’s existence a “gift” to Hamas and Iran. (I interviewed Senator Cardin about aid to Israel and human rights late last year.) The lone Republican vote came from Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.
I recently spoke by phone with Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, one of the ten Democrats who voted for the resolution. Merkley, who was an early supporter of a ceasefire, recently visited the Rafah border crossing with Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, and expressed concern about the lack of aid reaching Gazans. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed tensions within the Senate Democratic caucus, what he saw at the Gaza border, and why he thinks the American relationship with Israel must change.
Can you talk to me a little bit about why you voted for the Sanders resolution, and what you saw as the debate, both in the Senate and in the Democratic Party?
The amendment calls for our government to analyze carefully whether the actions that are occurring, in regard to Gaza, are violations of international law. I’ve had significant concerns about several aspects of what is unfolding in Gaza, particularly the dislocation of individuals, the undersupply of humanitarian aid, and the enormous injuries and deaths that have occurred from the bombing campaign. I think it merits having our government take a very close look at that, to give us the best understanding of what is unfolding.
In terms of the people who did not vote for it, what was your sense of their reasoning? Did you talk to your fellow-senators about it?
Yes. There was quite a substantial discussion within our caucus. Many, many individuals—I would say the majority of the caucus—do have significant concerns about the issues that are unfolding, the issues that I have mentioned. They’re wrestling with whether this particular provision was the right way to approach getting better insight on those issues.
It seems like this provision was not particularly extreme. It’s not asking for that much. The people who, as you say, have concerns about this but did not vote for it—what is your sense of how they’re thinking through this, and what they would in fact like to see?
Well, I think you’ve probably heard Senator Ben Cardin’s explanation of the arguments, but they include that the amount of details the U.S. government would have to document and analyze would be hard to do within the thirty days required by this provision. They also argue that we have other elements, including things like the Leahy Laws, that are designed to make sure that our partners are operating within international law. I’m not really the person to answer that question. You should direct it to those who voted that way.
Maybe you can tell me why you thought Senator Cardin’s arguments were insufficient, then.
Well, I’ve been very engaged in human-rights issues. I chair the Human Rights Commission and the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. I’ve conducted congressional delegations to examine challenges in other countries, including in Burma. I’ve gone to the American border to try to understand better how the policies that President Trump had in place affected children. The issue of abiding by international human-rights standards is really a core part of the work that I do here in the Senate.
I strongly supported Israel’s right to go after Hamas. I share the horror and the shock of the attack Hamas committed on Israel. It triggered the reactions that we had here in the United States after 9/11. Again, I strongly support Israel’s campaign against Hamas, but how they conduct it matters. We, as a key partner to Israel, have even a higher level of responsibility to examine how the campaign is conducted, and ask some tough questions when we see things that give us deep concern. I have been deeply disturbed by the enormous number of deaths, the enormous number of injuries, the hugely inadequate supply of humanitarian aid, and the massive dislocation of the Gaza and Palestinian population.
Why is it that you feel our current law is not sufficient for this? Because I think that was part of Senator Cardin’s argument, but you disagree, correct?
I feel like a report within the next thirty days would be very useful in getting our Administration’s best understanding of the strategy Israel is using, and the consequences of their approach, and whether there are alternatives. The Administration has said they have pushed for a much more targeted approach against Hamas, and so it would be valuable for us to understand how that would look different from the campaign that Israel has conducted.
Elizabeth Warren said recently that she thought half of the Democratic caucus in the Senate was prepared, potentially, to condition aid to Israel and other nations based on their compliance with international law in a more formal way. What is your read of that?
This sounds to me, Isaac, like a reference to the Chris Van Hollen amendment, for all of the aid to be utilized in accordance with international law. [The amendment to the aid bill working its way through Congress would require that weapons sent to any country are used in accordance with American and international law.] Of course, that’s already in international law, but it’s emphasizing that, and I do feel at least half our caucus is very supportive of passing such an amendment.
Can you explain to me the internal dynamics whereby half the caucus would be open to an amendment like that, but only a fifth of the caucus was open to the Sanders resolution? Because the Sanders amendment seems like a less serious step.
The Van Hollen amendment is a restatement of international law, and, really, it should have the support of every single senator. The Sanders amendment was calling for a report from our State Department and an analysis of the conclusions to be delivered about whether Israel’s in violation of international law. So asking for such a report puts the U.S. State Department in the role of doing a serious determination, and a number of members do not want our government to wrestle with and produce such a determination. I feel that, given the level of calamity in Gaza, an analysis of the strategy used by Israel is completely appropriate and valuable in this current situation.
But is the discrepancy because the Van Hollen amendment does not specifically call out Israel, and is about aid more broadly?
Well, again, the Van Hollen amendment re-states international law, and it re-states it for all aid to all countries. The fact that it’s being done at this point on this particular package, under the circumstances that occur in the Middle East, makes people understand the implicit message that we are concerned about whether international law has been followed, but it is an implicit message, rather than an explicit message like the Bernie Sanders amendment.
You said that this Van Hollen amendment was essentially a no-brainer, and that all senators should support this.
I did not say it was a no-brainer, but I did say it could have the support of all one hundred members, and the reason is: I think all hundred members of the Senate support the idea that our aid should be used in accordance with international law.
That’s very quaint, but O.K. So then why does this only have the support of half the Democratic caucus, in your mind?
I would not be surprised if the amendment ends up having a much broader set of support, if and when it’s voted on.
O.K., but it does seem like there are divides in the Democratic caucus about this whole range of issues. Senator Cardin said that he thought that the Sanders resolution was a “gift” to Iran and Hamas. This is tough language here, to say about something that people in your own party are voting for. So how do you understand that sort of discrepancy?
I don’t want to speak for Ben Cardin, but, for folks who were uncomfortable with that, they’re uncomfortable with the notion that we’re evaluating Israel’s tactics in a very formal fashion. For those of us who are comfortable with it, it’s because of the tremendous humanitarian catastrophe that has resulted from the way that Israel has prosecuted this war. And let me be very clear, when Chris Van Hollen and I went to Rafah and to Jordan and to Egypt, and spoke to the individuals who have been in the worst war conflicts on this planet, be it Sudan or Somalia or Yemen or Ukraine, this situation is far worse than any of them have seen anywhere in the world.
You have massive displacement of some eighty-five to ninety per cent of the population. They do not have anesthesia, or many do not. They do not have antibiotics. They do not have many of the necessities for treating patients. And then communications are down, which always complicates the ability to remedy bad humanitarian circumstances because it makes the logistics extremely difficult. So that combination of factors is a level of catastrophe that many of us are deeply disturbed by.
And, because the United States is both a large financial donor and military donor to Israel, we are complicit in those circumstances. So, those of us who believe that a report is valuable are saying we have a moral responsibility to understand these details. We are also arguing, and I’ll say I am arguing, that the United States must take a much stronger stand in remedying this situation, that we must say to Israel, “You must improve the inspection as trucks try to get to the Rafah gate, and you must improve the deconfliction so the supplies can be delivered. We need to see four-hundred-plus trucks a day in there, and that the U.S. will not stand for these hospitals that are left having insufficient supplies.” The United States should be saying to Israel, “We are going to make sure every hospital has all the anesthesia it needs, all the medicines it needs, the antibiotics it needs. We’re going to deliver those by helicopter. And, Israel, you better not shoot down our helicopters when we do so.” We need to be much stronger in addressing these circumstances.
The reason I brought up the quote from Senator Cardin is it just felt like dealing with colleagues who are essentially saying that you’re emboldening Iran or Hamas, by pushing to insure that human rights are looked at, must be a complicated thing to deal with in the workplace.
There is a deep disagreement about U.S. strategy. In most of my life, the dominant theory has been to never criticize Israel. That will give them the maximum confidence to do what is right and work toward peace. Since Camp David, we have been without an internationally supported vision for two states, and we have seen a progression of de-facto annexation of the West Bank. We have seen a siege of control of everything going into Gaza which has made living in Gaza extremely difficult. We have seen an increase in settler violence against Palestinian villagers.
It is time to pivot, to recognize that we need to work with Israel, and the international community, in a much more forceful way toward the vision of two states for two peoples. So some of my colleagues are still coming from the vision of, Never suggest that anything is wrong, and, Never suggest a criticism. But, for many of us, that plan has failed, and it’s time for a more assertive, determined collaboration between the United States, Israel, and the Arab League toward producing two states for two peoples.
What is your sense of exactly how, militarily, we are aiding the Israelis right now?
Certainly the biggest factor has been our resupply of artillery shells and bombs to Israel, as well as other military items. In terms of other issues, like intelligence collaboration and so forth, I am not familiar with it.
Do you feel like your communication with the White House or State Department has been adequate?
There has been a lot of very high-level dialogue between senators and key individuals within the Administration. I would like to see a direct conversation between a group of us who feel it’s time for the United States to pivot toward a more decisive strategy to address the humanitarian issues, to be able to have that conversation directly with the President. We’re working to see if that can be arranged. But in general the top officials have been very responsive and available to hear us out, and to discuss these challenges.
Can you tell me a little bit about what you saw at the Rafah crossing?
Yes. Chris Van Hollen and I went to try to understand better the challenge of providing humanitarian aid to Gaza. It’s rather shocking that, in a situation with such dire circumstances, the amount of aid has been so little, further aggravating the conditions—the conditions for clean water, for nutrition, for food, and for medical aid. Before October 7th, more than five hundred trucks would regularly pass each day into Gaza. Why, given the human calamity, can’t there be a lot more trucks passing now? Even just two weeks ago, it averaged, I believe, around a hundred and fifty trucks per day. Wholly insufficient.
Our goal was to understand this better, and what we learned was that there is a very complicated approval process. There was an approval process before, because Israel has always been vigilant about dual-use items getting into Gaza, but the process now involved the complicated strategy of going to the Rafah crossing, then going elsewhere for inspection, then returning to the Rafah crossing and having items, sometimes the entire truck, surveyed. Sometimes individual pallets were surveyed, and, when individual items were rejected, the whole truck was rejected.
The whole process took, as we heard from the international aid groups, often one to two weeks for a driver. Clearly you can’t get enough aid when it takes one to two weeks for a truck to get approved. You should be able to pick up a load, have it inspected, and get it into Gaza in a single day. We visited the warehouse of rejected items and heard stories of other rejected items, and there are so many things that are central to medical supplies, central to clean water, that were being rejected.
And, then, if you’re actually told you can move into Gaza, you have to have a deconfliction process to avoid having the truck driver killed, and to insure that the route to the warehouse is not going to be bombed along the way. That deconfliction process was completely broken, and we have seen this throughout Gaza, with hundreds of health and humanitarian workers who have been killed or injured.
Israel has the power to make this work. They’re extremely competent, and extremely organized. They know how to get aid in, but they’ve set up a system that, on the front end, the approval process, and on the back end, the deconfliction process, is dysfunctional. That is extremely troubling, given the level of need.
Do you think that they’re dysfunctional intentionally, or do you think that this is just poor management?
Israel absolutely has the managerial capability to make this work. It’s a matter of political will, lack of it.
Is it a matter of political will? Or is it your sense that the country is angry, and this is a form of punishment?
Well, certainly it would be accurate to say Israelis are very, and justifiably, angry about the horrific attack on their villages. The point of having the amendment, or the report that Sanders proposed, was to help answer that question. Certainly our Administration is saying Israel’s fully capable of getting a lot more aid in, and has been pushing them to do so. Certainly my impression is that Israel, knowing that they were able to inspect and deliver five hundred trucks into Gaza before October 7th, could certainly inspect and deliver five hundred trucks by tomorrow, if they were determined to do so.
Let me tell you a story of two doctors who came out at the crossing over there. One was just focussed on burns, and the other was focussed on broken bones. The one doctor on the burns talked about how the hospital they were working at had two hundred and fifty beds, but they had seven hundred patients, so you had patients everywhere. He said, “I want to be really clear. It doesn’t include all the people we’re turning away at the door because they’re too injured for treatment.” They showed me pictures of these burns that go straight through the skin. He said they’re almost impossible to treat under the circumstances.
The second doctor said, “I’m setting a lot of bones, a tremendous number of broken bones, from the bomb waves.” He said most people don’t understand how many injuries there are to the soft tissue inside the chest from these shocks from the bomb, these tremendously powerful two-thousand-pound bombs that have a blast radius, in terms of the pressure wave, that far exceeds the physical destruction. They both were absolutely exhausted. They talked about the shortages of medical supplies.
Whether you’re looking at hunger, whether you’re looking at the report of clean water, whether you’re looking at the medical conditions, the conditions are absolutely unacceptable, and America has to push a lot harder to reckon with this, and reckon with this quickly. I do think it’s in the best interest not just of the Gazans, who are directly affected, but also in terms of Israel and the United States. We are partners in this, and that puts a very high responsibility on us to solve this problem. ♦
