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.”

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

      • ramble81@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        3 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?

          • Zink@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • ramble81@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              3 months ago

              His statement is beyond telling. To him, everyone is a terrorist, so none of them matter.

              • Zink@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                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.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 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
          ·
          3 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
            ·
            3 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.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 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
        3 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.”