Vote on blocking weapons for Israel divides New Jersey’s senators

On most of the key issues that the U.S. Senate has taken up during the early months of President Donald Trump’s second term, New Jersey Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim have been in lockstep. But when it comes to the issue of Israel and Gaza, the two senators’ voting records have begun to diverge.

Last night, amid rapidly worsening conditions for starving civilians in Gaza, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) put forward two resolutions in the Senate that would block the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of bombs and assault rifles. Kim voted yes on both resolutions; Booker voted no.

The resolutions failed 27-70 and 24-73, but Kim’s yes votes aligned him with a narrow majority of the Democratic caucus – a notable shift in a party whose traditional allegiance to Israel has been tested by the last two years of war. In a statement last night, Kim said that, with critical food and supplies unable to enter Gaza, he views the sale of more weapons as an impediment to peace.

“I voted today to support the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval because the humanitarian catastrophe and widespread starvation underscores the necessity to end the military campaign in Gaza and allow for unfettered humanitarian access,” Kim said. “The weapons systems in the resolutions would only take us further from the change that is needed and prolong the suffering we witness.”

Booker, meanwhile, joined with the remainder of the Democratic caucus (including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer) and every Senate Republican in voting against the resolutions. He said that while he believes that the “suffering, starvation, and atrocities” in Gaza must be halted, he doesn’t believe Sanders’ resolutions are the best way to bring about an end to the war.

“It’s time for the conflict in Gaza to end – there must be an immediate ceasefire that stops the fighting, ends the suffering for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire, brings the hostages home, and dramatically increases humanitarian aid,” Booker said. “These Joint Resolutions of Disapproval would restrict our country’s ability to provide future security guarantees without achieving the goal of ending this war now or increasing vital humanitarian aid.”

Last night’s vote wasn’t the first time that the Senate has voted on efforts to block military aid to Israel, nor is it the first time that a divide between Booker and Kim has emerged. In April, Kim was one of just 15 senators to support two Sanders resolutions halting $8.8 billion in bombs and munitions sales; Booker voted against them.

And last fall, Booker split with Kim’s predecessor, interim Senator George Helmy, on a resolution blocking mortar sales to Israel. Helmy, the only Arab American in the Senate at the time, said that he believed it was important to “send a message” by supporting the resolution despite its nonexistent chance of success.

That vote, though, occurred when President Joe Biden still held the White House and Democrats still held some real sway over American policy in the Middle East. Now, of course, the context is different; even if Democrats were fully united on the issue, it might not mean much in the face of a Trump administration that has stood firmly behind Israel, though the ongoing starvation crisis may be prompting a change in that stance.

The issue is also tremendously politically sensitive for Democrats, and stances on either side are often subject to anger and attack. Polls show that an increasingly overwhelming majority of Democrats now side with the Palestinian cause over the Israeli one – a Quinnipiac poll from last month found that 60% of Democrats said their sympathies lie more with the Palestinians, versus just 12% with the Israelis – but not all longtime Democratic leaders and voters are on board, and Kim’s prior votes against weapons sales for Israel have drawn blowback in New Jersey.

Kim said in his statement last night that he understands his vote will likely anger some people once again, but that he’ll always be open to discussions with a wide range of New Jerseyans on the issue.

“I’ve had emotional and honest conversations with many in the Jewish, Muslim, and Arab communities in New Jersey over recent months,” he said. “I weighed these conversations heavily as I considered my vote and I understand that some will strongly disagree with my decision. I will continue to engage with those in our state deeply impacted by the current crisis and will do so with the incredible weight and importance of these decisions in mind.”

 

Cory Booker’s full statement

“The suffering, starvation, and atrocities happening in Gaza are unacceptable. I will continue fighting for humanitarian aid now.

It’s time for the conflict in Gaza to end– there must be an immediate ceasefire that stops the fighting, ends the suffering for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire, brings the hostages home, and dramatically increases humanitarian aid. These Joint Resolutions of Disapproval would restrict our country’s ability to provide future security guarantees without achieving the goal of ending this war now or increasing vital humanitarian aid.

Donald Trump promised to secure a ceasefire in his first week in office, yet the suffering and death in Gaza continues. It’s time for Trump to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. The Trump administration must facilitate an immediate ceasefire between the Israeli government and Hamas to end this conflict. And we all must work to bring about a just and lasting peace, one that guarantees Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state and ensures the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and a state of their own.”

Andy Kim’s full statement

“I voted today to support the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval because the humanitarian catastrophe and widespread starvation underscores the necessity to end the military campaign in Gaza and allow for unfettered humanitarian access. The weapons systems in the resolutions would only take us further from the change that is needed and prolong the suffering we witness.  

I had a heartbreaking phone call this morning with someone on the ground in Gaza who shared a story about a mother whose children are surviving on a quarter loaf of bread a day each, who herself often goes two-three days without eating. Her story is one of many in Gaza that cry out for help. 

Part of the outrage of this crisis is that there is enough food waiting across the border to feed Gazans in need. Thousands of trucks are ready to deliver, but they need greater access by the Israeli government. The current distribution system cannot handle the level of desperation. In fact, it’s making the misery worse. The current pauses in fighting and air drops simply are not enough for the necessary food to get to the people who need it. 

There needs to be an immediate and fundamental change in the response in Gaza. That means an immediate cessation of military action that will restore full humanitarian access levels that aid groups had during the last ceasefire earlier this year, as well as an agreed ceasefire to end the violence and free the remaining hostages. There is overwhelming support for this approach, including among Israelis surveyed.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has so far rejected calls to change course, but I believe the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis demands that supporters of Israel continue to urge him to do so. Having worked in war zones before, I know how much worse this crisis can get. I do not take this action lightly, and I plead with all to join the call for change. Providing sufficient humanitarian assistance doesn’t strengthen Hamas; it in fact would weaken the terrorist group and provide the necessary conditions for a viable alternative. Allowing aid to flow doesn’t diminish Israel’s security; it would strengthen it by rebuilding confidence with key regional and international actors.

I’ve had emotional and honest conversations with many in the Jewish, Muslim, and Arab communities in New Jersey over recent months. The antisemitism and Islamophobia that has left communities reeling is real fear and we need to work together to stop it. I weighed these conversations heavily as I considered my vote and I understand that some will strongly disagree with my decision. I will continue to engage with those in our state deeply impacted by the current crisis and will do so with the incredible weight and importance of these decisions in mind.”