Berl Falbaum
Michigan’s U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat, voted to support two resolutions opposing sales of military equipment to Israel.
One of the resolutions would ban the sale — $295 million — of 1,000-pound bombs, and the other involved the sale — $295 million — for D-9 bulldozers.
Thus, a question for Senator Slotkin: If you were a member in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, would you have cast such a vote?
The answer, of course, is self-evident; she hardly would have opposed acquiring military equipment to assure Israel’s safety and, indeed, its existence.
Wait, we don’t have to pose a hypothetical. Would she vote to oppose funds for the Pentagon that would finance new offensive weapons? The answer is pretty self-evident as well. And, we might note, America’s existence was and is not at stake.
Which brings us to a principle I have long held: If you are in a discipline, particularly the law and politics, and will not support a position or act that affects you negatively then it is wrong.
If Slotkin would not vote to limit funding for offensive weapons for the U.S., then she is wrong in voting to block the sale of such weapons for Israel, a strong ally of the U.S.
But, Slotkin explained that “I will continue to support sending Israel much-needed defensive weapons…”
So, she will help Israel defend itself against attacks, and suffer casualties, but she opposes Israel’s attempts to destroy the attacker, an attacker who has pledged to destroy Israel and committed itself to repeat October 7 “over and over again.”
This is the second time she has espoused this position. When the resolutions were proposed in July 2025, she missed the vote because she was taping an appearance for the “Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”
But, she said, had she been in the Senate, she would have opposed sales of military equipment to Israel.
She also has accused Israel of “violating the laws of war.” Not a word about Hamas, nor recognition that Israel is probably the only country in the history of warfare that advised civilians to seek safer territory because it planned an attack, thereby risking the lives of its soldiers.
In response to Israel’s warnings, Hamas fired on Gazans who sought refuge to safer ground after receiving the warnings.
Slotkin cites the main reason for her vote, the plight of Gazans and the children.
Yes, the civilian misery is heart-wrenching, but the “fault, Dear Senator,” to paraphrase Shakespeare’s Cassius, “lies not with Israel (nor in the stars), but with Hamas.”
Hamas’ principal strategy was and is to promote civilian deaths — “martyrs” — and suffering while blaming Israel because it helps the terrorist organization politically. And it has been successful beyond its wildest dreams.
The New York Times obtained video of Hamas looting aid centers, and it has also hijacked trucks bringing food and needed supplies to Gazans.
There are two ways to stop the suffering: Hamas lays down its weapons (which it still refuses to do) or Israel defeats Hamas and frees Gazans from the terrorist organization’s brutal control.
A good argument can be made that Israel should receive all the “offensive” military equipment it needs to defeat Hamas because the sooner the war ends, the sooner civilians will receive the help they badly need.
Stopping the sale of military aid to Israel has been the crusade for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for years. He has been anti-Israel his entire public career.
Over the years, more and more Democrats joined his anti-Israel campaign.
A few years ago, only a handful of Democrats voted to stop sales of military equipment to Israel. In the latest vote, 40 Democrats, a record number, voted to halt the sale of bulldozers while 36 voted to stop the
sale of the bombs. Both resolutions failed, primarily because Republicans voted against them.
Incidentally, Michigan’s senior senator, Gary Peters, voted to ban bulldozer sales but not the bombs. Talk about threading the political needle.
The most damaging part of Slotkin’s votes is that she has given fodder to Israel’s critics who have accused the Jewish state of war crimes, including genocide.
In defense of their charges against Israel, they can now point to Slotkin’s criticism while emphasizing “and she is Jewish.”
Slotkin has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate along with Arizona Senators Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego, Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff, and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. Like Slotkin, all four voted for the resolutions.
It makes one troyern (Yiddish for sad, grieve, mourn).
One of the resolutions would ban the sale — $295 million — of 1,000-pound bombs, and the other involved the sale — $295 million — for D-9 bulldozers.
Thus, a question for Senator Slotkin: If you were a member in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, would you have cast such a vote?
The answer, of course, is self-evident; she hardly would have opposed acquiring military equipment to assure Israel’s safety and, indeed, its existence.
Wait, we don’t have to pose a hypothetical. Would she vote to oppose funds for the Pentagon that would finance new offensive weapons? The answer is pretty self-evident as well. And, we might note, America’s existence was and is not at stake.
Which brings us to a principle I have long held: If you are in a discipline, particularly the law and politics, and will not support a position or act that affects you negatively then it is wrong.
If Slotkin would not vote to limit funding for offensive weapons for the U.S., then she is wrong in voting to block the sale of such weapons for Israel, a strong ally of the U.S.
But, Slotkin explained that “I will continue to support sending Israel much-needed defensive weapons…”
So, she will help Israel defend itself against attacks, and suffer casualties, but she opposes Israel’s attempts to destroy the attacker, an attacker who has pledged to destroy Israel and committed itself to repeat October 7 “over and over again.”
This is the second time she has espoused this position. When the resolutions were proposed in July 2025, she missed the vote because she was taping an appearance for the “Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”
But, she said, had she been in the Senate, she would have opposed sales of military equipment to Israel.
She also has accused Israel of “violating the laws of war.” Not a word about Hamas, nor recognition that Israel is probably the only country in the history of warfare that advised civilians to seek safer territory because it planned an attack, thereby risking the lives of its soldiers.
In response to Israel’s warnings, Hamas fired on Gazans who sought refuge to safer ground after receiving the warnings.
Slotkin cites the main reason for her vote, the plight of Gazans and the children.
Yes, the civilian misery is heart-wrenching, but the “fault, Dear Senator,” to paraphrase Shakespeare’s Cassius, “lies not with Israel (nor in the stars), but with Hamas.”
Hamas’ principal strategy was and is to promote civilian deaths — “martyrs” — and suffering while blaming Israel because it helps the terrorist organization politically. And it has been successful beyond its wildest dreams.
The New York Times obtained video of Hamas looting aid centers, and it has also hijacked trucks bringing food and needed supplies to Gazans.
There are two ways to stop the suffering: Hamas lays down its weapons (which it still refuses to do) or Israel defeats Hamas and frees Gazans from the terrorist organization’s brutal control.
A good argument can be made that Israel should receive all the “offensive” military equipment it needs to defeat Hamas because the sooner the war ends, the sooner civilians will receive the help they badly need.
Stopping the sale of military aid to Israel has been the crusade for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for years. He has been anti-Israel his entire public career.
Over the years, more and more Democrats joined his anti-Israel campaign.
A few years ago, only a handful of Democrats voted to stop sales of military equipment to Israel. In the latest vote, 40 Democrats, a record number, voted to halt the sale of bulldozers while 36 voted to stop the
sale of the bombs. Both resolutions failed, primarily because Republicans voted against them.
Incidentally, Michigan’s senior senator, Gary Peters, voted to ban bulldozer sales but not the bombs. Talk about threading the political needle.
The most damaging part of Slotkin’s votes is that she has given fodder to Israel’s critics who have accused the Jewish state of war crimes, including genocide.
In defense of their charges against Israel, they can now point to Slotkin’s criticism while emphasizing “and she is Jewish.”
Slotkin has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate along with Arizona Senators Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego, Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff, and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. Like Slotkin, all four voted for the resolutions.
It makes one troyern (Yiddish for sad, grieve, mourn).
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
