GOP-led standalone Israel aid bill fails in the House
cnn.com
The House on Tuesday failed to pass a standalone package for $17.6 billion in Israel aid amid opposition from both Republicans and Democratic leaders.
Because of resistance among members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, House Speaker Mike Johnson had been forced to bring up the bill under a procedure that requires two-thirds majority of the House to approve it. That means he needed the support of a sizable number of Democrats to get behind it, and failed to cross that threshold.
Inside a closed caucus meeting Tuesday morning, House Democratic leadership made a forceful case against supporting the standalone Israel aid package to members. Dozens of Democrats exiting the meeting said they will be voting against the bill.
You are viewing a single comment
Can anyone explain why Israel needs aid when it's obvious they are quite well funded given their actions? A handful of guys with small arms killed some civilians. I don't see why they need billions of dollars to recover from that.
Yeah it's like watching Arnold Schwarzenegger beat the shit out of Vern Troyer while bystanders mull about asking "should we pin Vern's arms down for Arnold? He did throw a punch at Arnold so he totally deserves it."
That is a perfect metaphor right there
I'm gonna go ahead and preemptively mark you down as "unemployed" for your naked antisemitism.
EDIT: I refuse to use "/s", but FYI this was just a tongue-in-cheek comment about the overreaction of many in the US, especially in the early days of this current conflict...
Genocide is thirsty work.
The answer you get from people who seriously want to give them the aide for FA reasons are:
Israel has historically relied upon Western (chiefly US) military assistance to maintain a significant stockpile and sophistication of arms and military preparedness to dissuade military action against it from its neighbors and other actors who are openly hostile its existence as a state;
Israel's prosecution of its current conflict has significantly depleted those stockpiles of armaments to the point that they no longer constitute such a quantum as to provide adequate deterrence to an attack.
Then maybe they should have used a semblance of restraint in their response.
I believe the reasoning is the same as the US went through with 9/11. It obviously wouldn't take billion of dollars to retaliate proportionally to October 7. Just like it wouldn't have cost a trillion dollars to retaliate in kind for 9/11. The cost escalates beyond all proportion when the goal is not just to retaliate in kind, but to eliminate the possibility of such an attack happening again.