- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
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.