Marjorie Taylor Green decries ‘horrific' crisis in Gaza
'I can unequivocally say that what happened to innocent people in Israel on Oct 7th was horrific,' Greene wrote on X. 'Just as I can unequivocally say that what has been happening to innocent people and children in Gaza is horrific. This war and humanitarian crisis must end!'
The United Nations warned Sunday of 'catastrophic hunger' in the besieged enclave, where access to humanitarian aid has been tightly controlled by an Israeli- and U.S.-backed nonprofit since May. Palestinians have reported being shot at by Israeli troops as they have attempted to make their way to limited aid sites.
Greene has at times broken from her caucus with her criticisms of Israel. In the same social media thread on Sunday, she said: 'I tried to cut funding to Israel, Jordan, and other countries as well as cut needless foreign aid. All my amendments failed because Congress refuses to stop their addiction to America last insane spending.'
It was a reference to when the Georgia Republican proposed during defense appropriation votes in mid-July slashing $500 million in American aid to Israel's air defense system, an effort that garnered only six votes in the House.
President Trump said Monday that there was 'real starvation' happening in the territory, and said that the United States would assist with 'food centers' in the territory.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, however, has come under considerable criticism. A group of Senate Democrats wrote Monday that the United States should urge Israel to revert to aid distribution run by the United Nations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Mamdani holds double-digit lead over Cuomo in DDHQ average
New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani leads former Gov. Andrew Cuomo by 13 points in Decision Desk HQ's recently formed average tracking the race. The average, made up of a mix of independent and campaign-associated polls, shows Mamdani ahead in the five-candidate field with 38.1 percent as of the most recent polling, followed by Cuomo, who is running an independent campaign after losing the Democratic primary, with 25 percent. Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa is in third with 15 percent, followed closely by incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who is also pursuing an independent campaign, with 11.5 percent. Independent Jim Walden, a former assistant U.S. attorney, trails well behind in last with just over 1 percent. Mamdani has been in the process of coalescing Democratic support behind his candidacy after his upset win in the primary in June over Cuomo. Some top Democratic leaders have withheld their endorsement for Mamdani despite him being the Democratic nominee, and polling has shown Mamdani with less support than what would normally be expected for the Democratic nominee for mayor in the heavily Democratic city. But Mamdani's support has been ticking up, while Cuomo's support has been dropping. Mamdani has also picked up endorsements from New York Democrats like Reps. Jerry Nadler and Adriano Espaillat, the latter of whom backed Cuomo in the primary. The other candidates in the race have expressed concern about the possibility of splitting the vote among them in November and allowing Mamdani to win the general election. Cuomo has suggested that the candidates should unify behind whichever candidate is in the strongest position to face Mamdani in September. But Adams and Sliwa, who have consistently trailed Cuomo in polling for second place, have been adamant that they will not drop out.
Boston Globe
26 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Stanford newspaper challenges legal basis for student deportations
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The lawsuit says that the newspaper, which is open to all students and has more than 150 members, according to the complaint, has weathered resignations and withdrawn stories by noncitizens who were concerned that publishing content about Israel or the conditions in the Gaza Strip could leave them vulnerable to deportation. Advertisement The climate of fear the lawsuit cites at Stanford follows a spate of arrests earlier this year, when the Trump administration began targeting prominent student activists in March, including Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, over their activism in speaking out against the Israeli government and the mounting death toll in Gaza. Advertisement 'They are going after lawfully present noncitizens for bedrock speech, like authoring an op-ed and going to protest,' said Conor Fitzpatrick, the supervising senior attorney at the foundation. 'And unless you have a blue passport with an eagle on it that says United States of America, they think they can throw you out of the country for it.' In those and other cases, immigration agents arrested the students after Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked the provision, deeming the students a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. In each case, Rubio personally signed off on the decision to revoke a student visa or render a lawful permanent resident deportable after determining that those interests were at stake. 'Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration are trying to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat, triggering deportation proceedings against noncitizens residing lawfully in this country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy,' the lawsuit says. The new lawsuit mirrored many elements of a case brought by another group, the American Association of University Professors, which is seeking to block the Trump administration from pursuing what it describes as a policy of 'ideological deportations' -- using the law to target activists based on their shared criticism of Israel and its conduct in the war. That case was argued before a federal judge during a two-week trial in Boston in July, and he is expected to decide this month whether to block the deportations on First Amendment grounds. The case raised similar concerns about chilled speech on college campuses, with testimony from faculty at several universities about how dramatically noncitizen academics had withdrawn from public life. Advertisement But lawyers in that case explicitly stopped short of arguing that using the foreign policy provision to target student demonstrators was unconstitutional, sidestepping a risky gambit in court over whether Rubio had abused the authority. That caution came as William G. Young, the judge in the case, expressed skepticism throughout the trial about whether he could rule against Rubio or others in the Trump administration given that they were exercising powers given to them by Congress. 'It seems to me we have a new administration who has, you know, absolutely the primary authority over the foreign policy of the United States,' Young said during closing arguments last month. But other judges have already contemplated the same questions the new lawsuit raises, concluding that using the foreign policy provision in the student activist cases was vague and probably violated the First Amendment. In the case involving Khalil, Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the U.S. District Court in New Jersey wrote that using the foreign policy provision to detain him was probably unconstitutional, even though that did not factor into his decisions to order Khalil's release in June. Since the Supreme Court limited federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions in June, any ruling in the case would likely apply only to the plaintiffs at Stanford. But the lawsuit aims to set a legal precedent that the organization hopes could be used more broadly. (STORY CAN END HERE. OPTIONAL MATERIAL FOLLOWS.) Fitzpatrick, the foundation lawyer, said there were narrow but conceivable situations in which the use of the foreign policy law would be appropriate, such as if pro-Kremlin Ukrainian politicians who fled the country after Russia's invasion sought refuge in the United States and continued to work to undermine Kyiv from abroad. Advertisement 'That has an arguable constitutional basis,' he said. 'What does not have an arguable constitutional basis is someone going up to a podium, whether it's at a city council meeting or a local park, at a protest, voicing an opinion that would be completely protected if you or I said it, and the secretary of state saying, 'We don't like the ideas you're spreading -- get out.' 'That's un-American,' he said. This article originally appeared in
Miami Herald
26 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Was dropping atomic bombs on Japan justified? 80 years later, views have changed
American public opinion toward the atomic bombing of Japan has changed significantly over time. The latest poll from the Pew Research Center reveals that less than half of Americans currently view the bombings as justified, marking a notable drop from earlier years. The survey was conducted ahead of the 80th anniversary of the bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two nuclear blasts killed around 200,000 people, many of whom were children, and left survivors with debilitating side effects, including higher rates of cancer and chronic illness. The attacks — which took place on Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, 1945 — were quickly followed by Japan's surrender to the U.S., which brought an end to World War II. They also signaled the dawn of the nuclear age, sparking a worldwide arms race that has led at least nine countries to develop atomic arsenals. In the recent Pew survey, 35% of respondents said the bombings were justified, while a slightly smaller share, 31%, said they were not justified. An additional 33% said they were not sure. The results appear to follow a trend of declining support for the nuclear attacks. In 1945 — in the immediate aftermath of the bombings — a Gallup poll found the vast majority of Americans, 85%, approved of the U.S. decision to drop the newly invented weapons on Japanese cities. Many years later, in 1990, another Gallup survey revealed that a much smaller share of respondents, 53%, approved of the attacks. And, in four subsequent Gallup surveys conducted between 1991 and 2005, approval fluctuated between 53% and 59%. In 2015 — on the 70th anniversary of the bombings — a Pew poll found 56% of Americans believed the attack was justified, while 34% said it was not. However, this survey did not include a 'not sure' option, unlike the most recent one. The latest survey — which sampled 5,044 U.S. adults June 2-8 — also revealed noticeable differences in views based on gender, partisanship and generational lines. For example, 51% of men said the bombings were justified, while just 20% of women said the same. Similarly, 51% of Republicans and those who lean Republican said the attacks were justified, while just 23% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning respondents said the same. Older Americans were also more likely than their younger counterparts to approve of the U.S. bombings. Nearly half of those 65 and older, 48%, said they were justified, while just 27% of 18- to 29-year-olds agreed. The poll — which has a margin of error of 1.6 percentage points — also asked respondents whether they believe the development of nuclear weapons has made the world more or less safe. The vast majority, 69%, said the creation of atomic weapons has made the world less safe. Just 10% said it's made the global community more safe, and 21% said they were not sure. When asked if nuclear weapons made the U.S. in specific safer, 47% said no and 26% said yes. Republicans were more likely than Democrats to say both that the development of nuclear weapons has made the world and the U.S. more safe.
