Listen up.

"Passive voice" does not mean "any construction I think is deliberately vague".

"Palestinians died" is in the active voice, even if you think it should read "Palestinians were killed by Israeli soldiers" (which, fittingly, is a passive voice.) It's weaselly, but it's not a passive. (Or, on the flipside, "violence broke out" isn't a passive either, even if you think it should say "the Palestinians attacked the Israelis", but at least the suggested correction is also in the active voice.)

"Democrats allowed this situation [of migrant separation] to escalate" is an outright lie, but that doesn't make it a passive voice construction either.

"Don't use the passive voice!!!" is an absurd little bugaboo, but if you're going to religiously adhere to it you can at least learn how to properly identify passive and active clauses.

(no subject)

"HI-SEAS protocol prohibits a crew smaller than four, which produces fewer data for the researchers."

That sort of ugly clause is what you get when you combine two dubious made-up zombie rules*, in this case "data is a plural!" with "use fewer for count nouns!"

The rest of the article, barring that amazing butchering of normal speech, is pretty good and worth reading, though: When a Mars Simulation Goes Wrong

* That's a technical term.