![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.reunion68.com\/Biuletyn\/img\/algem.png\")
<\/a>103 House Democrats Back Measure Their Own Whip Said Could Cut Aid to Palestinians<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/h5>\nCorey Walker<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n More than 100 House Democrats voted Wednesday to eliminate U.S. funding for Israel\u2014even after their party\u2019s second-ranking House leader warned that the measure\u2019s sweeping language could also block humanitarian assistance for Palestinian refugees and civilians in Gaza.<\/span><\/p>\n The amendment, introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), failed by a vote of 314\u2013104. Massie supplied the only Republican vote in favor, while 103 Democrats supported the measure and 10 voted present. The proposal would have barred any funding appropriated under the State Department spending bill from being \u201cobligated or expended for Israel\u201d and separately reduced the foreign-military-financing account by $3.3 billion\u2014the amount allocated for Israel\u2019s annual security assistance.<\/span><\/p>\n House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) nevertheless described the amendment as \u201coverly broad,\u201d arguing that it was not designed to produce a serious debate over the provision of offensive weapons to Israel.<\/span><\/p>\n She also asserted that the measure \u201cblocks all foreign aid to Israel, including humanitarian funding for Palestinian refugees and civilians in Gaza.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Clark did not identify which Palestinian-assistance programs would be affected, and the amendment itself did not expressly mention Gaza, Palestinians, refugees or humanitarian relief. Its operative language applied to funds used \u201cfor Israel,\u201d leaving unclear whether or how assistance provided directly to Palestinians or international humanitarian organizations would have fallen within the prohibition.<\/span><\/p>\n Nonetheless, Clark voted for the amendment, arguing that the existing relationship with Israel was no longer sustainable and accusing the Israeli government of failing to comply with American law, interests and values.<\/span><\/p>\n House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) raised a similar concern but reached the opposite conclusion. In a letter to Democratic lawmakers, Jeffries warned that the amendment could limit funding for \u201chumanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, peace-building and U.S. Embassy operations.\u201d He voted against it.<\/span><\/p>\n The statements by Clark and Jeffries created an unusual contradiction for Democrats supporting the proposal: according to their own leadership, a vote intended primarily to register opposition to military assistance for Israel could also jeopardize programs serving Palestinians.<\/span><\/p>\n Still, neither leader specified which appropriations would be captured by the amendment. The claim should therefore be understood as their interpretation of its broad wording\u2014not as an independently established finding that the measure would have terminated all American humanitarian assistance to Palestinians.<\/span><\/p>\n The vote nevertheless marked a dramatic break from decades of overwhelmingly bipartisan congressional support for Israel\u2019s annual security-assistance package. More than half of House Democrats voted for the amendment, including Clark and former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The measure\u2019s 103 Democratic supporters substantially outnumbered the 98 Democrats who opposed it.<\/span><\/p>\n Several Democrats presented their votes as protests against the conduct of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu\u2019s government rather than endorsements of ending every aspect of the U.S.\u2013Israel relationship. Others argued that American assistance should be conditioned on Israel\u2019s conduct in Gaza.<\/span><\/p>\n The amendment\u2019s opponents countered that eliminating assistance would weaken Israel\u2019s ability to defend itself, reduce American influence in the region and embolden Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.<\/span><\/p>\n Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), a longtime supporter of Israel, said the proposal would undermine American national security and diminish Washington\u2019s ability to confront terrorist organizations that target both Israelis and Americans.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIf adopted, it would\u2014as Leader Jeffries rightly pointed out\u2014limit our ability to confront terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah that expressly target American citizens and military personnel,\u201d Hoyer said.<\/span><\/p>\n He also argued that weakening the U.S.\u2013Israel relationship would make it more difficult for Washington to encourage negotiations toward a two-state solution.<\/span><\/p>\n Republicans almost unanimously rejected the amendment. They portrayed Israel as an indispensable strategic ally whose military strength helps contain Iran and its regional proxies.<\/span><\/p>\n The American Israel Public Affairs Committee praised the amendment\u2019s defeat but criticized Democrats who treated the vote as a symbolic protest.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThis so-called messaging vote on Israel\u2019s security sends a dangerous signal to both our allies and our enemies around the world,\u201d AIPAC said.<\/span><\/p>\n The organization noted that the underlying legislation preserved the full $3.3 billion security-assistance allocation provided under the memorandum of understanding negotiated during the Obama administration. According to AIPAC, nearly all of that money will be spent in the United States, supporting American defense production.<\/span><\/p>\n Massie, a libertarian Republican and longtime opponent of foreign assistance, has increasingly found himself aligned with progressive Democrats seeking to curtail aid to Israel, though the two camps arrive at that position from different ideological directions. Massie lost his Republican primary in May and will leave Congress at the conclusion of his term.<\/span><\/p>\n His amendment\u2019s defeat was never seriously in doubt. Its political significance lay instead in the size of the Democratic vote.<\/span><\/p>\n Only one Republican supported the proposal, while a majority of the Democratic caucus backed it. That division suggests that opposition to unconditional assistance for Israel is no longer confined to a small group of progressive lawmakers.<\/span><\/p>\n At the same time, the disagreement between Clark and Jeffries illustrates the uncertainty surrounding what many Democrats intended their votes to accomplish. Clark supported a measure she herself described as excessively broad and potentially harmful to Palestinians. Jeffries agreed that its consequences could extend beyond military aid but opposed it for precisely that reason.<\/span><\/p>\n The result was a vote that allowed 103 Democrats to register dissatisfaction with Israel while leaving unresolved whether they were also prepared to accept the broader humanitarian and diplomatic consequences their own leaders said the amendment might produce.<\/span><\/p>\n Zawarto\u015b\u0107 publikowanych artyku\u0142\u00f3w i materia\u0142\u00f3w nie reprezentuje pogl\u0105d\u00f3w ani opinii Reunion’68,<\/em> 103 House Democrats Back Measure Their Own Whip Said Could Cut Aid to Palestinians Corey Walker U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) addresses reporters during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., July 29, 2022. REUTERS\/Jonathan Ernst More than 100 House Democrats voted Wednesday to eliminate U.S. funding for Israel\u2014even after their […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[6],"tags":[33,24],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132230"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=132230"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132230\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":132252,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132230\/revisions\/132252"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=132230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=132230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=132230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.algemeiner.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/2022-08-02T145923Z_1_LYNXMPEI710PU_RTROPTP_4_CHINA-USA-TAIWAN-1.jpg\")
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) addresses reporters during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., July 29, 2022. REUTERS\/Jonathan Ernst<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nani te\u017c webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyra\u017anie zaznaczone.
\nTwoje uwagi, linki, w\u0142asne artyku\u0142y lub wiadomo\u015bci prze\u015blij na adres:
\n<\/em>webmaster@reunion68.com<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"