67
submitted 1 year ago by pete_link@lemmy.ml to c/politics@lemmy.world

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/33487836

By MEE staff
Published date: 21 July 2025 21:11 BST

The New York lawmaker voted against an amendment by Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene last week that sought to block $500m in Congress' annual defence spending bill for Israel's Iron Dome programme.

Fellow Democrats Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar [as well as Democrats Al Green of Texas, Summer Lee of Pennsylvania and Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky - PL] had supported Taylor Greene's amendment, which eventually lost in a 422-6 vote.

In a post on X on Saturday, Ocasio-Cortez claimed that Greene's amendment did "nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza".

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 96 points 1 year ago

AOC's post:

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza. Of course I voted against it.

What it does do is cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue.

I have long stated that I do not believe that adding to the death count of innocent victims to this war is constructive to its end. That is a simple and clear difference of opinion that has long been established.

I remain focused on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza.

[-] SpaceShort@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure I understand this argument. Everything is essentially money. If America gives them funding for the Iron Dome, that leaves Israel with more money to buy offensive weapons.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

So, this is a dumb explanation. It's like saying you would never support giving a knight a sword, just armor and a sheild. The armor and sheild are what let's him mow down peasants on the battlefield with impunity, you can't separate them out.

That being said, this is getting fucking ridiculous. The amendment was never going to pass (it got 6 votes), so this was entirely symbolic. Beyond that, she voted against the defense spending bill it was attached to, so in end, she didn't support arms to anyone. She's also one of the strongest voices on Gaza in congress (an admittedly low bar); she's been voting against sending arms to Israel since before October 7th, she usually votes, "present," on Iron Dome funding, and she's called what's happening in Gaza a genocide on the House floor. I can count on one hand the number of U.S. politicians willing to say, "genocide," when talking about Israel. Behind Omar and Talib, she's probably the most reliable pro-Palestinian Representative.

I'm assuming that she had some reason for voting against the amendment, and I assume it has to do with optics. Maybe she she thought siding with MTG would hurt her, maybe she thought voting against the Iron Dome would make her vulnerable to AIPAC attacks. It sucks, but Bowman and Bush both lost their seats to AIPAC money. The reality is you have to play politics sometimes, and if that means not making a symbolic vote for a doomed amendment, that's not the worst compromise to make.

load more comments (23 replies)
[-] Veedem@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

Cutting off defense seems like a dumb move and I agree with AOC on this. We should cease all offensive weaponry sales as that’s clearly being used in a god damn genocide.

[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 68 points 1 year ago

Cutting defense means they would have to shift the budget to defense.

Moreover you're helping the aggressor protect itself against finding out the consequences of their own action.

Fuck that noise.

load more comments (34 replies)
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

Funding is funding.

Cut it all off.

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Why are we responsible for Israel's defense? they have free health care and education but our checkbook is open for iron dome missiles for them ? No. Thats American taxpayer money, not theirs. If they are rich enough to bribe the entire American government, then they are rich enough to buy their own missiles.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Big swing and a miss for AOC there.

[-] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

AOC doesn't miss. You're not listening to her or paying attention to the details/fine print. You can fuckin bet she is

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago

You just posted evidence that you respond to clickbait headlines without knowing what the article says or is even about. Hallmark of a conservative voter

[-] cephus@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago
[-] 3abas@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

AOC’s defense of her vote is a swing and a miss because it rests on a false distinction. She claims the amendment only cuts funding for the Iron Dome (a "defensive" system) and not for the bombs killing Palestinians, but that’s misleading.

The Iron Dome isn’t neutral; it enables Israel to continue bombing Gaza with impunity by shielding it from retaliation. It’s part of the war apparatus, not separate from it.

By opposing this amendment, AOC helped maintain the full structure of US military aid that underwrites the genocide she says she opposes. Her rationale sounds nuanced, but in practice, it protects the status quo.

And while she says she's focused on cutting offensive munitions, the reality is that the US is sending Israel billions in lethal aid right now, and this amendment was a chance to actually stop some of it. Voting against it doesn’t show strategy; it shows inconsistency and a failure to act when it counts. If you’re serious about ending genocide, like she keeps insisting she is, you take every shot you can. This was one, and she missed it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] PetteriSkaffari@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Because knowing that a response to your aggression is harmless lets you get away with being aggressive. So funding their defense system allows Israel to attack countries in the region, killing people without any due process.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

According to her, she voted no to this bill. I’m very confused by this article.

[-] Dultas@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

She didn't vote yes to the amendment to the bill to remove defensive funding. She voted no to the whole bill the amendment applied to IIRC.

[-] DrFistington@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

Ahh, gotcha, so this is just a shit stirring article that tries to send a very misleading message

[-] SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Gotcha. That makes more sense and I wish articles about this kind of thing made it clearer.

[-] ceenote@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

It was an amendment to remove funding for the iron dome. She voted against the amendment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one 24 points 1 year ago

Manipulative title, fuck off.

[-] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But no blood on the doors or Schumer or Jefferies.

This whole shitshow is just the octillionth example of the left biting its own dick off instead of attacking the fascists stomping on it.

[-] Doorbook@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

regardless of the position on "Israel" genocide, this is tax money going to a foreign country.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago
[-] Asswardbackaddict@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Didn't pass the purity test. Back to being a field slave. Also, you personally aren't doing enough and are therefore colluding with the oppressors. I am infallible.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
67 points (66.2% liked)

politics

30954 readers
2068 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS