Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who is a leader in the Democratic foreign policy establishment, gave an extraordinary speech on the Senate floor on Monday night, excoriating the Netanyahu government for deliberately blocking aid to civilians. He and Sen. Jeff Merkley traveled to the Egypt side of the Rafah crossing around five weeks ago, and Van Hollen came back livid at Israel’s deliberate stalling of aid. On the Senate floor, he said that he had recently heard reports that children are now beyond starving and are actually dying of starvation. He texted Cindy McCain, the head of the World Food Programme, and asked if the rumors were true. He quoted her response to him: “This is true. We are unable to get in enough food to keep people from the brink. Famine is imminent. I wish I had better news.”
He drove the point home: “Kids in Gaza are now dying from the deliberate withholding of food. In addition to the horror of that news, one other thing is true: That is a war crime. It is a textbook war crime. And that makes those who orchestrate it war criminals,” he said , adding that he had recently spoken with officials at humanitarian relief organizations. “Every one of them, every one, has stated that their organizations have never experienced a humanitarian disaster as dire and terrible as the world is witnessing in Gaza.”
The senator’s speech pulsed with moral clarity — until it petered out into a stumbling rationale for his forthcoming yes vote. He would still be voting to send some $14 billion to the people he had just described as “war criminals,” he said, because the bill also included $60 billion for Ukraine’s war effort and humanitarian aid for Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine, and elsewhere. (It also ponies up $8 billion for a Taiwan war effort.) He acknowledged that the aid money wouldn’t be worth anything to the Palestinians if Netanyahu wouldn’t let it in, and he pleaded with Biden to pressure Netanyahu to do so. But if even this level of moral clarity from somebody like Van Hollen isn’t matched with any action, it’s hard to see why those pleas will be heard this time.
When the roll was called, only Sen. Bernie Sanders and Merkley, Van Hollen’s companion on that recent trip to Rafah, voted no. It needed 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, and thanks to significant opposition from Republicans, it only got 66. A small bloc of Democrats could have blocked it and forced the Senate to consider each spending piece separately.
The moment Genocide becomes a tradeoff is when the Realpolitik should end.
I’m all about stopping the genocide in Gaza, that being said voting this down the bill would just add a genocide in Ukraine. Best we can hope for is harm reduction.
I’m pretty confident that voting down israel’s free weapons will stop their Genocide quite swiftly.
Nah, because they don’t NEED our weapons or money to do it. They’d do it regardless. They have plenty of weapons and money of their own.
When they don’t need it we’re sure adamant in giving it.
A lot of their heaviest weapon systems are American, such as the F35. Many Iron dome missles also partially get resupplied by America.
Even cutting off spare parts is a big deal. Israel’s in house production is mostly ground vehicles and some drones.
Israel is not a self sustaining country.
We’re adamant in giving aid because the politicos need the donations, not because Israel needs the money or the weapons.
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=Q05
Politicians bring in MILLIONS of dollars in donations by supporting Israel. That’s really all there is to it.
deleted by creator
Here’e the real problem:
Israel could exterminate every Palestinian tomorrow and there would be no long term ramification from it, for Israel or anyone else.
Allowing Putin to roll over Ukraine emboldens him and puts a target on every other former Soviet block country.
Allowing Russia to continue doing what they’re doing is an order of magnitude more dangerous than allowing Israel to continue doing what they’re doing.
In terms of human crisis? Yes, both should be stopped. In terms of Global World Order? Stopping Russia is paramount. Stopping Israel? Well, maybe, if we throw another 100 UN resolutions at them telling them “No, illegal, no! Bad, bad, bad!”
You’d think so but apparently there’s a blockade on the Red Sea and israel is trying to start WW3 in the middle east.
The myth of “nobody is standing up for Palestinians” has been dispelled. The question is how much resistance America is asking for.
The other Arab countries could stand up for the Palestinians if they really wanted to, Egypt could offer them a home, so could Jordan, Syria or Saudi Arabia. Lebanon is too small as it is so that’s not a real ask.
They could have done this at any point since 1948 and have chosen not to.
They already taken quite a lot of Palestinian refugees so factually that doesn’t check out.
And suggesting Ethnic Cleansing of a population as a solution is euhhh…
Taking in refugees and offering a homeland are different things. ;) The US takes in refugees too, but nobody is offering up land to replace what’s been stolen from them.