Connect with us

World News

Calls for ‘conditions’ in aid to Israel add to Democrats’ divisions on November 24, 2023 at 5:00 pm

Published

on

The battle among Democrats over U.S. policy on Israel has found a new front this month in the form of liberal calls to set “conditions” on any new military aid delivered to Tel Aviv. 

A number of leading progressives in both the House and Senate have warned in recent days that they would oppose any aid package that fails to apply new limits on Israel’s forceful engagement with Palestinians in the wake of Hamas’s brutal attacks on Israeli civilians last month, including strikes in Gaza that have killed thousands more Palestinian civilians.

Behind Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the liberal critics of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s tactics want to withhold new aid to his government unless it agrees to new constraints designed to minimize those civilian casualties. 

Advertisement

“The blank check approach must end,” Sanders wrote in a New York Times op-ed published Wednesday. “The United States must make clear that while we are friends of Israel, there are conditions to that friendship and that we cannot be complicit in actions that violate international law and our own sense of decency.”

The demands have sparked a backlash from some of Capitol Hill’s most ardent pro-Israel Democrats, who are lashing out at the pro-Palestinian bloc with warnings that restricting Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 attacks would only empower Hamas, which the United States deems a terrorist group, and heighten the threat it poses to Israel. 

“Neither Palestinians nor Israelis will know peace so long as Hamas holds hostages, controls Gaza, and retains its ability to attack Israelis,” Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), a staunch Israel supporter, said over the weekend. “Conditioning aid to Israel will move peace further away, threatening both Israeli and Palestinian lives rather than saving them.” 

The internal clash has highlighted the long-standing Democratic divisions when it comes to the decades-old Israel-Palestine conflict, creating fresh challenges for party leaders, including President Biden, who are backing Israel’s forceful response while also scrambling to placate the liberal critics — a key branch of the party’s base — who are accusing Israel of committing human rights crimes in Gaza.

Advertisement

Those ruptures have been on full display within the House Democratic Caucus since Oct. 7, arising during a pair of votes to affirm Congress’s support for Israel — both rhetorically and financially — and later in another series of votes that ended in the formal censure of Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), one of just three Muslims in Congress and the only Palestinian American, for her sharp criticisms of Israel. 

The tense debate is sure to resurface in the coming weeks when Democratic leaders are hoping to approve Biden’s $14.3 billion request for Israel aid — part of a much broader proposal that also features military funding for Ukraine and humanitarian assistance in Gaza — in the short window that remains before year’s end. 

Sanders, a liberal icon with an army of followers, foreshadowed the tough battle to come when he issued a statement over the weekend outlining the stipulations needed to win his support for more Israel aid. 

His six-point plan calls for an immediate end to what he considers “indiscriminate bombing” in Gaza that’s resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians; a “significant pause” in Israel’s military operations to allow for the delivery of humanitarian aid; affirmation that displaced Gazan families will retain the right to return to their homes; assurances that Israel will neither continue its blockade on Gaza, nor occupy the region long-term, when the hostilities end; a prohibition on the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank; and a commitment to earnest peace talks designed to clinch an elusive two-state solution. 

Advertisement

“The Netanyahu government, or hopefully a new Israeli government, must understand that not one penny will be coming to Israel from the U.S. unless there is a fundamental change in their military and political positions,” Sanders said in the statement.

He is hardly alone. Alongside Tlaib, a number of House liberals — many of them representing the far-left “squad” — have also been highly critical of Israel’s historic policies toward Palestinians broadly and Netanyahu’s handling of the current military operations in Gaza in particular. 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) argued that the United States applies conditions to “virtually all other … allies,” and doing the same toward Israel is simply “the responsible course” to ensure that American taxpayers aren’t financing human rights abuses. 

“The United States has a legal and moral responsibility to ensure that public resources do not facilitate gross violations of human rights and international law,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. 

Advertisement

Israel’s most vocal Democratic defenders have different ideas. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (Fla.), a first-term lawmaker, denounced the conditional approach, vowing to block any such provisions from an Israel aid package if they were under consideration in the House. 

“I am absolutely for humanitarian aid to Gaza,” Moskowitz wrote on X. “But if Bernie Sanders puts political requirements on the Aid to Israel, I will work in the House to remove those conditions or condition Aid to Gaza that requires the removal of Hamas.” 

The Democratic collision over Israel reflects the broader debate around the country, pitting those supporting Israel’s military strategy, in the name of self-defense and self-preservation, against those critical of Tel Aviv’s human rights record in Gaza and the West Bank. 

That debate has grown more fierce as both the country and Congress have grown more diverse. Some lawmakers said it’s only natural that the conversation would change with the arrival of new members with distinctive backgrounds and unique perspectives. 

Advertisement

“We’ve never had this before,” said Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), a member of the squad. “We’ve never had three Muslims before, two Muslim women before. So if we’ve never had that … it’s going to be very contentious and difficult and challenging to understand each other on Day One. 

“My hope is that on Day 1,000 there is a collective understanding and we begin to have conversations that center on empathy and compassion and humanity — for all people. And we don’t have that right now. It’s pro-Israel, and that’s it,” he continued. “We don’t even talk about the occupation, the conditions in Gaza, the 50 percent poverty, the 50 percent children, a siege happening when the language that’s being used is clearly to dehumanize, conflating Hamas with Palestinian. 

“That’s what’s happening — from the White House on down.”

Across the aisle, Republicans are largely united in their support for Israel aid, though there are disagreements within the GOP over whether the new funding should be accompanied by other budget changes designed to defray the costs. 

Advertisement

Newly installed Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), as his first legislative act with the gavel, passed a $14.3 billion Israel package earlier in the month, which also featured steep cuts in IRS funding to satisfy conservatives — an addendum that added billions of dollars to deficit spending and eroded almost all support from Democrats. 

The next steps on Israel aid are expected to begin in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats who oppose any offsets to emergency spending bills. It remains unclear how, or if, Johnson would bring such a bill to the House floor and risk a conservative revolt.

​ The battle among Democrats over U.S. policy on Israel has found a new front this month in the form of liberal calls to set “conditions” on any new military aid delivered to Tel Aviv. A number of leading progressives in both the House and Senate have warned in recent days that they would oppose any… 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

US May Completely Cut Income Tax Due to Tariff Revenue

Published

on

President Donald Trump says the United States might one day get rid of federal income tax because of money the government collects from tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs are extra taxes the U.S. puts on products that come from other countries.

What Trump Is Saying

Trump has said that tariff money could become so large that it might allow the government to cut income taxes “almost completely.” He has also talked about possibly phasing out income tax over the next few years if tariff money keeps going up.

How Taxes Work Now

Right now, the federal government gets much more money from income taxes than from tariffs. Income taxes bring in trillions of dollars each year, while tariffs bring in only a small part of that total. Because of this gap, experts say tariffs would need to grow by many times to replace income tax money.

Questions From Experts

Many economists and tax experts doubt that tariffs alone could pay for the whole federal budget. They warn that very high tariffs could make many imported goods more expensive for shoppers in the United States. This could hit lower- and middle‑income families hardest, because they spend a big share of their money on everyday items.

What Congress Must Do

The president can change some tariffs, but only Congress can change or end the federal income tax. That means any real plan to remove income tax would need new laws passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. So far, there is no detailed law or full budget plan on this idea.

What It Means Right Now

For now, Trump’s comments are a proposal, not a change in the law. People and businesses still have to pay federal income tax under the current rules. The debate over using tariffs instead of income taxes is likely to continue among lawmakers, experts, and voters.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Epstein Files to Be Declassified After Trump Order

Published

on


Former President Donald Trump has signed an executive order directing federal agencies to declassify all government files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier whose death in 2019 continues to fuel controversy and speculation.

The order, signed Wednesday at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, instructs the FBI, Department of Justice, and intelligence agencies to release documents detailing Epstein’s network, finances, and alleged connections to high-profile figures. Trump described the move as “a step toward transparency and public trust,” promising that no names would be shielded from scrutiny.

“This information belongs to the American people,” Trump said in a televised statement. “For too long, powerful interests have tried to bury the truth. That ends now.”

U.S. intelligence officials confirmed that preparations for the release are already underway. According to sources familiar with the process, the first batch of documents is expected to be made public within the next 30 days, with additional releases scheduled over several months.

Reactions poured in across the political spectrum. Supporters praised the decision as a bold act of accountability, while critics alleged it was politically motivated, timed to draw attention during a volatile election season. Civil rights advocates, meanwhile, emphasized caution, warning that some records could expose private victims or ongoing legal matters.

The Epstein case, which implicated figures in politics, business, and entertainment, remains one of the most talked-about scandals of the past decade. Epstein’s connections to influential individuals—including politicians, royals, and executives—have long sparked speculation about the extent of his operations and who may have been involved.

Advertisement

Former federal prosecutor Lauren Fields said the release could mark a turning point in public discourse surrounding government transparency. “Regardless of political stance, this declassification has the potential to reshape how Americans view power and accountability,” Fields noted.

Officials say redactions may still occur to protect sensitive intelligence or personal information, but the intent is a near-complete disclosure. For years, critics of the government’s handling of Epstein’s case have accused agencies of concealing evidence or shielding elites from exposure. Trump’s order promises to change that narrative.

As anticipation builds, journalists, legal analysts, and online commentators are preparing for what could be one of the most consequential information releases in recent history.

Continue Reading

Politics

Netanyahu’s UN Speech Triggers Diplomatic Walkouts and Mass Protests

Published

on

What Happened at the United Nations

On Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, defending Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza. As he spoke, more than 100 delegates from over 50 countries stood up and left the chamber—a rare and significant diplomatic walkout. Outside the UN, thousands of protesters gathered to voice opposition to Netanyahu’s policies and call for accountability, including some who labeled him a war criminal. The protest included activists from Palestinian and Jewish groups, along with international allies.

Why Did Delegates and Protesters Walk Out?

The walkouts and protests were a response to Israel’s continued offensive in Gaza, which has resulted in widespread destruction and a significant humanitarian crisis. Many countries and individuals have accused Israel of excessive use of force, and some international prosecutors have suggested Netanyahu should face investigation by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, including claims that starvation was used as a weapon against civilians. At the same time, a record number of nations—over 150—recently recognized the State of Palestine, leaving the United States as the only permanent UN Security Council member not to join them.

International Reaction and Significance

The diplomatic walkouts and street protests demonstrate increasing global concern over the situation in Gaza and growing support for Palestinian statehood. Several world leaders, including Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, showed visible solidarity with protesters. Petro called for international intervention and, controversially, for US troops not to follow orders he viewed as supporting ongoing conflict. The US later revoked Petro’s visa over his role in the protests, which he argued was evidence of a declining respect for international law.

BILATERAL MEETING WITH THE PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL Photo credit: Matty STERN/U.S. Embassy Jerusalem

Why Is This News Important?

The Gaza conflict is one of the world’s most contentious and closely-watched issues. It has drawn strong feelings and differing opinions from governments, activists, and ordinary people worldwide. The United Nations, as an international organization focused on peace and human rights, is a key arena for these debates. The events surrounding Netanyahu’s speech show that many nations and voices are urging new action—from recognition of Palestinian rights to calls for sanctions against Israel—while discussion and disagreement over the best path forward continue.

This episode at the UN highlights how international diplomacy, public protests, and official policy are all intersecting in real time as the search for solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains urgent and unresolved.

Continue Reading

Trending