#house resolution

[eretzyisrael]

The House will vote on Tuesday on a resolution introduced on Monday by House Republicans rejecting claims that Israel is racist or an apartheid state, condemning antisemitism and declaring support for Israel.

While the text of the legislation itself does not mention Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) by name, the brief, eight-line resolution comes in response to comments over the weekend by the congresswoman describing Israel as a “racist state.”

The resolution was introduced by Reps. August Pfluger (R-TX), alongside the two Jewish Republicans in the House, Reps. David Kustoff (R-TN) and Max Miller (R-OH). House Republican leadership fast-tracked the legislation to a vote on Tuesday, ahead of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.

In statements on the legislation, its sponsors specifically called out Jayapal and other Democrats critical of Israel.

“Representatives Pramila Jayapal, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar’s repeated comments denigrating Israel are unacceptable and disgusting,” Pfluger said in a statement. “I am proud to introduce this resolution ensuring all Americans know where their Representatives stand when it comes to supporting Israel and our Jewish communities.”

Kustoff called Jayapal’s comments “repulsive and repugnant” with “no place in the hall of Congress, nor in our national conversation.”

Miller, who sponsored the legislation earlier this year that expelled Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that “Congresswoman Jayapal can try to take back her comments, but her intent was crystal clear—and absolutely deplorable… There is no place for this type of rhetoric in the House.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said the legislation comes “in light of the recent rise in anti-Semitic rhetoric we’ve seen from leading figures in the Democrat Party,” without referencing Jayapal, and noted that he’s “proud to schedule this bill ahead of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit.”

The resolution is expected  to receive wide bipartisan support. Democratic leaders in the House quickly distanced themselves from Jayapal’s comment. On Monday, 43 House Democrats joined a statement led by pro-Israel Jewish Democrats disavowing Jayapal’s comments and declaring support for Israel.

Signatories to that statement include nine members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which Jayapal leads: Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL), Frederica Wilson (D-FL), Darren Soto (D-FL), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Juan Vargas (D-CA), Mike Levin (D-CA), Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Grace Napolitano (D-CA). Additional progressive lawmakers have also distanced themselves from Jayapal’s remarks.

At the same time, some on the left have dismissed the legislation.

“This is not a pro-Israel resolution. It’s a cynical ploy so that Republicans can continue to waive their arms and yell about Israel and antisemitism while not doing anything to make life better for Israelis, much less even acknowledging that Palestinians exist,” Americans for Peace Now CEO Hadar Susskind said in a tweet. “It’s garbage.”

J Street, which endorsed Jayapal, did not respond to a request for comment on how or whether it was advising members to vote on the resolution.

On Monday, Jayapal tweeted out excerpts from a New York Times op-ed by columnist Michelle Goldberg that derided the backlash to her initial comments as a “hysterical overreaction.”

“The rush to condemn her offhand remarks is […] about raising the political price of speaking about Israel forthrightly. […],” the excerpt that Jayapal tweeted read. “It’s easier for Israel’s most stalwart boosters to harp on a critic’s slight misstatement.”

[ivygorgon]

AN OPEN LETTER to THE PRESIDENT & U.S. CONGRESS

Mischaracterization of "From the River to the Sea" Slogan as Antisemitic

161 so far! Help us get to 250 signers!

Dear President Biden and Members of Congress,

I am writing to address the recent resolution passed on April 16th, by the House condemning the slogan "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free" as antisemitic. As someone deeply committed to promoting understanding and combating prejudice, I feel compelled to offer clarification on the misinterpretation of this slogan.

The slogan "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free" is deeply rooted in the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and freedom from occupation. Contrary to the characterization of the slogan as antisemitic, its primary aim is to advocate for the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people, who have endured decades of dispossession, displacement, and denial of their basic human rights.

At its core, the slogan calls for the realization of the Palestinian right to statehood and sovereignty within the borders delineated by the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It is a powerful expression of the Palestinian people's aspirations for justice, equality, and the right to live free from oppression and discrimination.

It is essential to recognize that advocating for Palestinian rights and supporting the slogan "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free" does not equate to antisemitism. Criticizing the policies of the Israeli government or expressing solidarity with the Palestinian cause should not be conflated with hatred or prejudice towards Jewish people.

As highlighted in Al Jazeera's article, the slogan has historical significance and resonates deeply with Palestinians worldwide as a symbol of resistance against occupation and injustice. To dismiss it as antisemitic is not only inaccurate but also undermines the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people and stifles meaningful dialogue and reconciliation in the pursuit of a just and lasting peace in the region.

I urge you and your colleagues to engage in informed and nuanced discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, recognizing the complexities and diverse perspectives involved. It is through dialogue, empathy, and mutual understanding that we can work towards a future where all people in the region can live in dignity, security, and peace.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this perspective. I remain hopeful that together, we can contribute to a more just and inclusive world for all.

▶ Created on April 16 by Fatima

See how your House Member voted. Check the roll from here:

📱 Text SIGN PYTCSZ to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW FREEPALESTINE to 50409

Follow H.RES.883:

Sources:

[silverlombaxwitch]

Redraw from a piece last yr once again folks and this time with the noceda siblings!

[fruitageoforanges]

the prince and princess of dragonstone in aegon's garden

belated valentine's day post... it's my blog, i get to make sappy art of one of the most tragic couples in asoiaf. i maintain that there was a sweet spot, once they got used to each other's oddnesses and before everything went to shit, when they were happy.

[ianthesmells]

[heartshapedcaskett]

Parkton, NC August 2016

[jeansvoid]

TOH fan-animation compilation

2020 - 2022

[bonelyheartsclub]

It’s technically the 16th in half the world now, so happy birthday to all the BHC Papyri, and happy Let Papyrus Say Fuck Day! Is the date a coincidence? You decide ;)

All PFPs drawn by @scrambledmeggys

[smallpapers]

“n-no problem”

[389]

Socks sitting at the Resolute desk in the Oval Office, 1994

Socks at the lectern in the White House Press Briefing Room

[cainpdf]

a hilson poem as a new year gift, from me to you —skel

[binah-beloved]

i have an infestation

[alphaketoglutaricacid]

when toshiro got on laios ass for being inconsiderate and never thinking about how his actions affect others like he was mean abt it but hes not wrong. Thats a pretty major character flaw and a pattern of behavior for laios — w not choosing jobs that made money for namari who is in a pretty dire financial situation where she cant even get off the island and has to go adventuring in the dungeon to get out of debt, who even explicitly brought this up, eating marcilles familiar immediately even tho she was attached to it, kidnapping shuro into his party and putting him in life threatening situations without like really checking he wanted to be there…?, wanting to see if izutsumi has more than one set of nipples when dehumanization is a HUGE huge issue for her the list goes on and on and on. Like when a friend does this to you its just kinda annoying but when ur the leader u really should be checking if everyones needs r met without them telling u. Like the autism plays a factor for sure, his cultural upbringing plays a factor for sure, but as ppl regardless I think u gotta step up to meet the needs of ppl in the moment or realize u shouldnt be calling the shots. just bc its influenced by factors out of ur control does not make it not a serious character flaw. And its written as such in the story.

[thefirsthogokage]

There is going to be a House Resolution 902 that is calling for Palestine's Right to Exist. Introduced by Representative Green from Texas.

Get on your phones and call your reps telling them you want them to back this bill!

It doesn't have any text yet but here's proof:

(link to source)

Please spread this!

[thefuturewithoutus]

personal take on the hilson timeline: wilson was the one who fell first for house he just refused to examine it and decided to live with it. for him it's normal to want to leave his wife for house because house is his everything so he gives and gives and house takes and takes. this is the status quo until amber.

amber in universe is referred to as house but a girl, and it's true. amber is house but a girl and socially acceptable for wilson to pursue, and wilson could see himself building a life with amber that isn't possible with house because it's the 2000s and they're both repressed. so for the first time house sees wilson seriously fully committed to a relationship that isn't a fluke and he panics bc amber is everything he is and everything he can't be.

when amber dies it devastates wilson bc there goes his chance at being with the one woman he could've had a real, normal uncomplicated relationship with. meanwhile house is desperately trying to get his special spot in wilson's life back and decides to ditch the levels of sarcasm and irony as protection from the sincerity of his feelings for wilson (going from wilson youre so annoying i don't know why we're friends in s1-s3 to "YOU LOVE ME TOO MUCH" in fucking the first episode wilson is kind of friendly to him in season 5). there's the dynamic shift.

and it plays out like that until season 8. i 100% believe that the first time house sees wilson again after getting out of jail he realizes that he loves wilson so much and also. i think season 8 house would've been the one who could've plainly asked wilson out on a date. if it wasn't for his cancer diagnosis i think house would've tried something if he didn't get cold feet about it. yeah and in the four episodes of wilsons immediate reaction to his diagnosis house is literally making allusions to them fucking and asking if he would've been in wilsons envisioned life even if he had a wife and a family. it's giving This Is Not a Joke for Me Unless You Laugh. it's like house finally understands what he wants then the rug gets pulled out from underneath and it's gone before it even had a chance. just like Wilson! Anyways I'm autistic sk like maybe this doesn't resonate but if it doess yasss and slay

[stillcarmine]

Frank and Piper were done so dirty in Blood of Olympus.

Frank’s journey of bringing the family full circle by returning to Pylos was built to be a major element of his and his family’s story in Son of Neptune, and was foreshadowed and set up during his rise to praetor in the House of Hades. But in the final book, it happens:

Off screen

In Piper’s PoV

Isn’t even the main focus of a single chapter

Isn’t even the focus of six pages

Literally, Piper and Frank are in Pylos for only six pages. Only three of those pages are about Frank’s visit with his family or how he feels about it. To add insult to injury, Piper’s main conflict of the novel is introduced here too! She had a conversation with Aphrodite about the integral role she would play in defeating Gaea. Cool. Only:

It happens off screen

It’s not the main focus of the chapter

It had much more weight on the entire plot of the book than Frank’s story line but it still isn’t given the proper time

God, it’s like RR thought to himself, ‘hey, let’s kill two birds with one very ineffective stone and not think anymore about it!’

Like, just say you don’t care about Frank and Piper and go.