House Votes to Block U.S. Funding to Rebuild Gaza
House Votes to Block U.S. Funding to Rebuild Gaza
The Republican amendment to the annual defense budget is just one of several proposals to restrict humanitarian aid to Gaza.
The House voted on Wednesday to block the U.S. from funding the reconstruction of Gaza, whose destruction was financed by the U.S. to a large degree.
Other Republicans filed amendments combating the movement to boycott, divest, or sanction Israel for its illegal occupation of Palestine.
The provision was introduced by Reps. Brian Mast, R-Fla.; Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y.; and Eli Crane, R-Ariz., as an amendment to the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act, the annual defense budget. While Democrats opposed the amendment, which passed by a simple voice vote, they did not request a recorded vote.
Among the amendments with Democratic sponsors are ones expressing support for joint military ventures between the U.S. and Israel.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., for his part, filed an amendment to require an assessment of the accuracy of the Gaza Ministry of Health’s death toll accounting. Over the last eight months, supporters of Israel have pointed to the fact that Hamas — as Gaza’s governing entity — controls the health ministry as a way to undermine its death count. Nonetheless, the Ministry of Health’s figures have in the past been corroborated by the United Nations, Doctors Without Borders, and even the Israeli government itself.
You're viewing a single thread.
While Democrats opposed the amendment, which passed by a simple voice vote, they did not request a recorded vote.
Before you blame this on republicans, Dems didn't even challenge it for a vote so they had to put their names on it.
They just fucking stood there.
Wonder why Hakeem Jefferies didn't even try...
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/hakeem-jeffries/summary?cid=N00033640
If you wonder why pro Israel Dems keep getting to the general where Dem voters have no option but voting for them:
That has made AIPAC the biggest source of Republican money flowing into competitive Democratic primaries this year, according to a POLITICO analysis of campaign finance data — and drawn outrage from the left over what it sees as GOP meddling in Democratic contests.
Nearly half of AIPAC donors to Democratic candidates this year have some recent history of giving to Republican campaigns or committees.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/09/aipac-republican-donors-democratic-primaries-00162404
Anyone want to guess what US politician has taken more money than anyone else from pro-Israel lobbyists?
And yes, I'm aware AIPAC isn't required to register as an agent of a foreign government, they get an exception.
The only reason it exists is because the prior group did have to register as a foreign agent in 1962. So they rebranded and donated to the people in charge of deciding who goes on that list, so AIPAC has never had to go on that list.
This has been an issue for over 60 years and there's no rational excuse to keep ignoring it.
Edit:
I should have presented the way for Dems to stop this:
In the United States House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limiting the duration of debate was created.[70] The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed eliminated it in 1890.[71] As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House had acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes. The magic minute allows party leaders to speak for as long as they wish, which Kevin McCarthy used in 2021 to set a record for the longest speech on the House floor (8 hours and 33 minutes) in opposition to the Build Back Better Act.[72][73]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
Republicans did it for 8.5 hours just a few years ago...
Jefferies agrees with Republicans on this though.
Which is one of the big complaints about current Dem leadership. They only fight if they're 100% sure they'll win. Voters want politicians willing to fight even if it's hard and losing is possible.
We can't fight facism like this, because they fight every battle even if they don't have a chance of winning.
I'm sorry, "before you blame this on republicans"? Republicans vote for Horrible Policy, pass it, but we should blame it on democrats for not ...calling for a recorded vote? Yeesh.
Democrats didn't have the votes. You don't like this result, vote out republicans.
givesomefucks covertly attacks Democrats in every comment. It’s often a baseless argument, beginning with some truth. They start making a good point, then twist it into a veiled criticism of Biden or Democrats, even when it’s the fault of Republicans or entirely apolitical.
In this case you’re correct. The Republican majority in the House makes a vote pointless.
Ironically, the same message givesomefucks is spreading will disengage people who may otherwise increase Democratic representation in government, leading to actual positive change.
They may just want to ensure they have something to complain about next year.
TLDR: OP honestly pointed out an awful thing that the Dems did. This kind of honesty is bad because it may make you not want to vote for Dems. Republicans are bad because they are dishonest and do awful things.
Incorrect. They didn’t challenge it because they don’t have House majority. If it were put to a vote, they’d lose regardless. It’s a moot point, and givesomefucks is leveraging it as a wedge issue.
It’s a baseless argument designed to point fingers at Democratic Representatives, when the actual problem is low Democratic voter turnout in congressional elections. If we had majority in the House, this vote would actually have a chance.
Dissuading people from voting Democrat will worsen this issue, not improve it. Notice they never have a solution? It’s always “don’t vote Democrat” without any suggestions for change? It’s completely contradictory advice from a passionate disengagement advocate.
Democrats didn’t have the votes.
Why is it Dems need a super majority to do anything then?
The fillibuster, right?
Like, you know the reason you call for a vote is so a fillibuster can happen, right?
If there's no vote, there's no chance to filibuster.
So the reason no one had a chance to fillinuster, is Hakeem Jefferies let it happen without a vote.
The fillibuster has nearly no relation to what the house does. I don't know why you're hung up on it. I mean read your own damn quote. Do you think anyone cares if a party leader decides to speak for 8 hours in the house before a vote? For a day? They don't need a supermajority to stop them, they just let them run out of steam. The Senate it matters, but it's just theater in the house .
Do you think anyone cares if a party leader decides to speak for 8 hours in the house before a vote? For a day?
Yes...
In the run up to a very important election it's important for dem leadership to show potential voters that Dems will fight for what voters want.
Like. Why would you think that isnt important to voters?
But...
It's disappointing that you don't remember when Republicans did it in 2021.
Republican voters did, and it contributed to their gains in 2022. Because their voters believed Republicans would fight even if they knew they couldn't win.
And that's what voters want out of their representatives.
Because the reason many leftists are dissatisfied with Dems is that they're largely performative, and you're arguing for more performative nonsense that achieves nothing.
No.
I'm arguing that bare minimum they should be doing "performative nonsense that achieves nothing."...
Why do you think that "literally nothing" is better?
Edit:
I think the difference is you want actually stuff accomplished. I do too.
But that's not going to happen, so I at least want "performative nonsense" because that will keep Trump out of office.
And like Biden supporters keep saying, that is the most important thing about the upcoming election.
I just want party leaders to start acting like it instead of just saying it as an excuse for their actions or lack of actions.
If there was going to be a fillibuster, then they would have requested a vote count. You don't avoid a vote count to prevent fillibuster, if you intend to fillibuster, then you ask for a vote count.
That said, I mostly agree with you this time otherwise. The dems do not want to take a stand on this issue because they are trying not to alienate the moderate pro-Israeli faction. It'd be cool though, if you could stop conveniently forgetting that the dems are not a hard progressive party that always wants to do progressive things but is being held back by its leadership. It's just not factual. There is a reason Bernie is not registered as a dem.
It's far more likely they know it's DOA with the Senate and don't need to waste time on acknowledging more performative GOP bs.
You don't understand how the US government works. This comment makes that incredibly obvious.
The filibuster is in the Senate. Not the House. That should be obvious to anyone who pays attention to politics.
He literally gave an example of a filibuster on the House floor in his comment. Idk how effective it would be, but he did source an example of someone fighting with a filibuster.
It's only for party leaders. And they'd have to actually speak the entire time. The GOP would just wait and then pass it when he was done. It's not like the Senate filibuster which can effectively kill legislation.
I kinda see their point, though. Even that kind of performative gesture would get headlines and demonstrate to the public that they're trying actively to fight for the cause. It's like when Trump would try to do something and get shut down, like with the Muslim ban or something. He would look like he was doing something and getting obstructed by courts or the "deep state", but it made people feel like they had an advocate on their site, even though he just didn't care that much and was mostly out to enrich himself.
I agree, it's not totally unreasonable to do it, but it's also not totally unreasonable to not do it, and to save the media attention for something more meaningful. And less divisive for Democrats. Like, say, a law banning abortion federally.
Wow, not a word about the Republicans that introduced the measure to block funding and who hold a majority in the House.
It’s clear which party and which presidential candidate is a better choice for people who care about Gaza and want to resist right-wing regimes (such as Netanyahu) worldwide. The Democratic one.
The Democrats gladly participated. If their actions are the same what does the wording matter?
Their actions are not the same. Republicans blocked the funding by introducing a measure to eliminate it, not Democrats.
BoTh SiDeS.. bla, bla bla... There must be some mistake here, Trump causes all the bad stuff, we just have to keep Trump out of office so then everything will be great! Trump is a literal fascist! He's going to do awful things, Biden and his dems are doing so good, basically the human form of the word "perfection"!
I'm sorry, I can't really follow what you're saying here.
But it might help if you read my reply to the other person about why without a vote there couldn't be a filibuster allowing this to happen with a Republican majority rather than a supermajority
Now, enough Dems might have voted with Republicans on this, but I want to know their fucking names at least
Not for them to hide behind republicans skirt and count on people blaming them.
Exactly. I'm just pointing out how stupid people are who always say that it's the Republicans that do awful shit and not Dems. This is yet another case of them both being awful, and yet whenever things like this get pointed out, people jump up and yell about how both sides are not the same. I just beat the fools to it so that when they do it, it looks especially dumb. They will probably just silently downvote since they really have no other way to respond.