The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on Thursday that would force President Joe Biden to send weapons to Israel, seeking to rebuke the Democrat for delaying bomb shipments as he urges Israel to do more to protect civilians during its war with Hamas.

The Israel Security Assistance Support Act was approved 224 to 187, largely along party lines. Sixteen Democrats joined most Republicans in voting yes, and three Republicans joined most Democrats in opposing the measure.

The act is not expected to become law, but its passage underscored the deep U.S. election-year divide over Israel policy as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government seeks to wipe out militants who attacked Israel on Oct. 7, killing around 1,200 people and seizing 253 hostages, according to Israeli tallies.

    • Xanis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Better say that louder. I can’t hear you over the general white noise all the blindly and mindlessly pointing fingers make.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      And that’s exactly why we can’t vote for genocide Joe. Don’t forget to sit out this election or vote third party - that’s the only way to have a meaningful impact and improve the lives of Palestinians! /s

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      The Republicans voted to pass a bill in the House to send the weapons. It will almost certainly fail in the Senate but, even if it doesn’t, Biden would have to sign it into law. I don’t see Biden signing a bill to override himself, and there is no way that Congress would get the required 2/3 in each chamber to override. This bill was just a performative stunt.

      • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Why would he have to sign it into law? He could veto it. Might even be just the excuse he needs to stop supporting a genocide. As if just supporting the genocide wasn’t enough, now he can say he’s not supporting the Republicans too.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          That’s what I meant. For it to take effect he would have to sign it into law. There is no reason for him to do that.

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        It says exactly that in the 3rd paragraph of the summary.

        The act is not expected to become law …

      • xantoxis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Sure but the point is, after months of pithy quips about how the Democrats will support genocide of the Palestinians and the Republicans will support genocide of everyone including the Palestinians;

        here we see that even on this specific issue, the parties have differences. So make the right choice.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Did I say otherwise?

          This isn’t wrong, but this argument gets made over and over and over again in every political thread on almost every topic, whether or not it fits the flow of the conversation. People don’t want to be preached at and it’s going to be self defeating.

      • eskimofry@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Right, all the anti-genocide protestors will disperse because a U.S bill that hamstrings any attempt to stop the genocide MAY fail… and hence critics will remain eerily silent.

      • BossDj@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        They must wait until they are fed the proper response.

        It was just locker room talk

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Feels like they should be adding critical contextual information like this to the titles. I know the headline writers hate the idea of people just reading the headline to get informed (because clicks are needed for ads), but people do get informed that way. It’s a very different story if “Congress rebukes Biden on Israel” than “Republicans rebuke Biden on Israel”, and I expect “US House” translates into an average reader’s mind much more as “Congress” than “Republicans”.

      • Clent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Which is why we need tests before voting. The average American is too ill informed to be trusted with voting.

        The Republicans have brought in all sorts of other hurdlers for voting but oddly nothing that would test the intelligence of their electorates.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I can’t imagine how such tests would be fair and not abused. It might make for a more effective electorate if there were so many poorly informed votes in the mix, but making that happen is almost certain to lead to abuse and very unlikely to produce the desired result.

          • Clent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            My proposal was sardonic. The right has tried to revive anti-voter measures but none that would reduce the ability of their halfwit supporters to cast their ballots.

          • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            making that happen is almost certain to lead to abuse and very unlikely to produce the desired result.

            Lead to abuse agreed, but why do you think it’s very unlikely to produce the desired result?

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Two reasons:

              1. Because it will lead to abuse and thus not try to measure political knowledge.
              2. Because a reasonably accessible test can’t really measure political knowledge. Even defining “politically knowledgeable” is hard. Do you need to watch Trump rally speeches to be politically knowledgeable? Do you need to know the three branches of government? Are we a democracy? Do we have free and fair elections? Can you be a single-issue voter, or do you need to prove you know all the other stuff?
                • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  How does a civics test prove competency to vote. And do you bar someone from voting for not knowing what the three branches of government are? What’s the correct answer to “are we a democracy”? Is there a reason a single-issue voter shouldn’t be able to vote if they don’t know things irrelevant to their single issue?

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    And do you bar someone from voting for not knowing what the three branches of government are?

                    Yes.

                    What’s the correct answer to “are we a democracy”?

                    Matter of opinion.

                    Is there a reason a single-issue voter shouldn’t be able to vote if they don’t know things irrelevant to their single issue?

                    No.

                    A civics test would confirm you understand how government functions. Not that you have the right opinions.

          • Clent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yes. That’s the joke. They can’t do it now because their constituents are morons.