62 Democrats Join 207 Republicans in Vote to Conceal Gaza Death Toll
62 Democrats Join 207 Republicans in Vote to Conceal Gaza Death Toll
Democratic leaders did not tell members to vote against an amendment to block the State Department from citing Gaza’s Health Ministry.
Democratic leaders did not tell members to vote against an amendment to block the State Department from citing the Gaza Health Ministry’s statistics.
The House of Representatives has voted to effectively conceal the death toll from Israel’s war on Gaza.
On Thursday, lawmakers voted 269-144 on an amendment to prohibit the State Department from citing statistics from the Gaza Health Ministry. The measure is part of the annual State Department appropriations bill. It was led by Democratic Reps. Jared Moskowitz, Fla., and Josh Gottheimer, N.J., and Republican Reps. Joe Wilson, S.C.; Mike Lawler, N.Y.; and Carol Miller, W.V.
Mohammed Khader, policy manager at the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, told The Intercept that the amendment is part of a trend of anti-Palestinian sentiment in Congress since the start of Israel’s atrocities in Gaza. “By preventing any recognition of the number of Palestinians killed since October, this amendment is a clear example of genocide denial and is no different from what was done towards victims of genocides in Rwanda and Armenia.”
You're viewing a single thread.
Fuck the genocide deniers. Block all the info you want. Those of us who are sane, and aren't bought by AIPAC money see through it all. All your attempts are transparent and ultimately futile. We know what Israel is doing, what info we do have clearly paints them as genocidal. Innocents dont murder journalists. Your reputation is shredded, Israel. Hopefully we can stay mad at this and AIPAC long enough to end lobbying. Destroying a lot of the incentive to be a complete piece of shit.
Innocents don't murder journalists...
Hamas killed four Israeli journalists on Oct 7th during the attacks.
"but Israel is doing it worse"
How many people are they allowed to kill in retaliation for Oct 7th? Zero? 1:1? 10:1?
No country in the world would get attacked and not retaliate if they had the means.
How many people are they allowed to kill in retaliation for Oct 7th? Zero? 1:1? 10:1?
I mean you asked the question, whats your number?
Because Israel has killed 104 as of today.
If Hamas killed 4 on Oct 7, that puts the ratio at 26:1.
Israel estimates that 1200 were killed on Oct 7.
A recent estimate puts Israel at 34,900 killed.
Thats a ratio of about 29:1. Is that acceptable to you?
I'm doing this not because there is any acceptable level, but to highlight the absurdity of the idea that there even is one. Hamas needs to be held accountable for its crimes. Israel needs, at a level about 29 times more so, also needs to be held accountable for their crimes.
The idea that any level of incidental murder is acceptable is absurdist, and you are a terrible person if you think there is one.
To me, if my children or wife had been taken hostage. There would be no limit to the ratio I would be willing to accept to get them back.
Hamas still has hostages captured that day they are tying to use for negotiations.
The difference between my opinion and yours is that you consider it incidental murder, while I consider it a war that Palestinians are losing. War kills people, and acceptable casualties (enemy, friendly, and even innocents) are literally part of the calculations made by every single country that has ever participated in a war.
To me, if my children or wife had been taken hostage. There would be no limit…
So then, when about all those people killed in the process. What about the mothers and children dying? The ones that are not directly involved in this fight either. Do their spouses get the chance for the same level of revenge once they’re killed?
Do you not see that inequality and what it does?
Do I should let them take my family with no consequence because they're using human shields?
No, my side is strong enough to get them back. Screw the terrorists and those that harbour them. They can try to retaliate, and they can die until they won't fight back anymore.
People these days seem to think there's a diplomatic solution for everything. They need to go read a nonfiction history book, because they are currently in the fiction section.
What if you were born in the wrong place and your family got gunned down or buried under rubble because the enemy thought a hostage (or their dead body) was in a building at the end of your street?
You can’t always assume you’re the one who is both on a righteous quest and in possession of superior firepower.
His statement is beyond telling. To him, everyone is a terrorist, so none of them matter.
Life isn't fair.
There isn't some sort of right to fairness.
Yep. I see that as a reason to treat people with grace and compassion, especially the innocent and disadvantaged.
And just to be clear, actual terrorists are in no way innocents. That is not who I am talking about. Nor am I arguing for pacifism.
Well, the biggest problem with this situation and using the term "innocent" is that the vast majority of Gazans support Hamas and supported the attack on Oct 7th.
72% support for the attack.
I don't consider those people innocent.
TheReS nO diPloMAtiC SoluTiOn, thErE’S onLy M U R D E R
What's the diplomatic solution? Give in to terrorists and let them attack again?
That's exactly what happened in Ukraine with Crimea and we've all seen how that turned out.
These groups both want the same land. Somebody has to not get their way.
And how many hostages does Israel have? Do Palestinians not have the same right, that if their family has been taken hostage, to do anything to get them back?
You dont get it. Its clear that you dont get it.
They get it, but they believe that some lives are less important than others. When someone holds that position I haven't found an argument to convince them otherwise.
They get it, but they believe that some lives are less important than others. When someone holds that position I haven’t found an argument to convince them otherwise.
Exactly. This is the fundamental lesson you (the royal "you"; as 'one') needed to learn from BLM. The history and legacy of settler colonialism and white supremacy leaves us with inherent and structural biases that means some "lives" are valued higher than others.
When you attack someone stronger than you, it usually does not end well. They can try, but there will be further consequences.
It took a few hundred thousand middle eastern civilians dying after 9/11 before anyone started complaining and even that did not lead to this level of protest.
People are ok with violence if its their country that has been attacked.
When you attack someone stronger than you, it usually does not end well.
Explaining this to the Israeli shipping companies currently bottlenecked in the Suez by Houthi rebels.
if my children or wife had been taken hostage
The first thing I'd do is find a dozen people of the same ethnicity as the hostage taker and kill them. Then I'd send in a strike team to grab anyone I believed was affiliated with the hostage taker - coworkers, family members, social media contacts - and imprison them indefinitely. Finally, I'd bulldoze someone's house. Doesn't really matter whose. Just to show people I mean business.
The difference between my opinion and yours is that you consider it incidental murder, while I consider it a war
I'm reminded of this old Thomas Friedman quote.
It’s important to stop for a moment here and take note of the fact that Friedman’s idea wasn’t that we specifically needed to attack Iraq. Friedman didn’t even bother to claim to Charlie Rose that there was, for example, a link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead, he said that the problem is that “they” needed to see that Americans didn’t care so much about our “stock options and Hummers” that we were unwilling to make sacrifices.
What was the “they,” exactly? Muslim extremists? Muslims in general? The Middle East as a region? Friedman casts a very wide net:
“What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house—from Basra to Baghdad—and basically saying:
“Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?: You don’t think we care about our open society? You think this fantasy—we’re just gonna let it grow? Well, suck. On. This. That, Charlie, was what this war was about. We coulda hit Saudi Arabia… We coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.”
Member Shireen Abu Akleh?
Israel killed an American journalist and Biden doesn't care.
Not sure what your comment has to do with the post though.
How many people are they allowed to kill in retaliation for Oct 7th? Zero? 1:1? 10:1?
Per the Dahiya Doctrine the general rule is 30:1. If a single Israel is injured or killed, the state has the authority to kill up to 30 Palestinians.
Commentators for The Guardian, The Washington Post, and Mondoweiss have noted that the attacks of the Israeli Defense Forces on the civilian infrastructure of the Gaza Strip during the 2023 Hamas-Israel war may constitute an extension of the doctrine. Haaretz reported that IDF had dropped "all restraint" in its war: killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure at an unprecedented rate.
Writing in The Guardian, Paul Rogers of Bradford University argues that Israel's goal in the 2023 war is to "corral the Palestinians into a small zone in the southwest of Gaza where they can be more easily controlled," and that the long-term goal is to make clear that Israel "will not stand for any opposition."
So they're pretty much on target.