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.”

  • BlameThePeacock
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      6 months ago

      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?

      • BlameThePeacock
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • triptrapper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

      • BlameThePeacock
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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.”