137
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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
[-] [email protected] 6 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours 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.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago

You are allowed to say you like progressive policies and also hate giving weapons to genociders.

[-] [email protected] 26 points 1 day ago

Manipulative title, fuck off.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago

So we want civilians to be killed by rocket attacks now?

That makes it clear this "pro-Palestinian" movement is not actually against civilians being killed... they actually do want civilians to die. It's just they want only civilians of a specific ethnicity to die.

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.

So there's a willingness of the "pro-Palestinian" movement to ally itself with anti-semites of the nationalist white supremacist variety. Nationalists and "socialists" finding common ground in their hatred of Jews. Where have I heard this one before?

[-] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Wait so, you would be ok with countries giving money to Hitler so they can build defense systems in Germany?

Not only this but I wouldn't trust a genocidal maniac state in not using this money for other military purposes. The best way of keeping civilians alive is ending the war not stoking it. Moreover such blocks can actually force Israel to transfer some of its offensive resources back to defensive. Not that I believe MTG's intentions were good.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago

Going full Godwin right out of the gate?

An odd move to make given you're aligning with a self described nationalist like MTG. I'd think given the position you're taking you'd want to downplay the references to Nazis.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

I would say the same for you given that MGT's intensions are more likely to create a smear campaign than defend any particular ideology. And it is a good one I will give her that, whether or not AOC voted yes or no for this, she would be able to stoke a smear campaign one way or the other.

To be frank, I don't think she has any particular ideology that she is attached to anyway, it is more like there are some ideologies that she uses as a tool.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 18 hours ago

you're being so disingenuous

[-] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago

Oh, so you honestly believe Marjorie Taylor Greene suddenly has sympathy for the "pro-Palestinian" cause? Or is it possible she might have some other motivation for this amendment? What do you think MTG's motives are?

[-] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago

MTG absolutely did this because she's an anti-semitic freak who believes in jewish space lasers. But you're being disingenuous because it's obvious the co-signers aren't interested in her motivations.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago

What do you call two people voting with an antisemite? Three antisemites.

Look at the vote count. It was never going to pass. It wouldn't have changed the outcome no matter which way they voted, so it's purely a vote indicating their principles. They could've abstained (refusing to vote with nutjob MTG but also refusing to vote for funding), but instead voted with MTG to signal that they are fine with being in alignment with white supremacist antisemitism.

But now we know their principles are to vote with an antisemite to indicate they want Israeli civilians to die.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 20 hours ago

Yup called it (In a distant post) AOC is not a good person. Replace her with Zohran Mamdani

[-] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[-] [email protected] 98 points 2 days 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.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 20 hours 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.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 1 day 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.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago

Exactly. Remember this when people claim we can turn the Democratic party with progessive candidates. The progressive candidates are the ones always turned by the Dems, not the other way around. It's their MO.

load more comments (23 replies)
[-] [email protected] 65 points 2 days ago

Big swing and a miss for AOC there.

[-] [email protected] 36 points 2 days 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)
load more comments (12 replies)
[-] [email protected] 59 points 2 days 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.

[-] [email protected] 79 points 2 days 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.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 23 hours ago

Okay, but on the other hand, if they stopped providing defence aid to israel, they could then say that they stopped financing them and did enough, so they don’t have to stop offence funding for their genocide

load more comments (33 replies)
[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 day 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.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 23 hours ago

I bet that the US gets a lot of intel about the other countries in the region in return.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

Thats speculative, and even if true, its not worth the cost, or the problems allying with israel creates. Israel is not useful to the US and never have been. Its all cost.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 11 hours ago

Yes, it is speculative. That is what it means when a sentence starts with "I bet".

[-] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago

More than that, Isreal is basically a forward opperating base of the US in the middle east. They're just the US with Groucho Marx glasses on, our sock puppet for genocide and imperialism.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Thats just not true at all.

If true, then why doesnt Israel allow any actual operational bases inside Israel? There are no US warplanes flying out of Israel, and there never have been. They fly out of Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan-- which is actually a forward operating base that you pretend Israel is, and hosts British planes too. It was a big celebration when a navy ship was allowed to dock and resupply in israel in 2018, after no US warship had been allowed to dock in Israel in the previous 20 years.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-navy-returns-to-israeli-port-in-sign-of-deep-alliance-idUSKCN1ML2IT/#%3A%7E%3Atext=%22This+visit+has+significance.%2Cthe+safety+of+our+sailors.%22

The US has a shared radar site in the negev that has 10 people staffing it, that they are just now talking about building a barracks for, and also what they call a "base within a base" AKA a desk inside a Israeli military base. Not operational. Israel is not a FOB for the US, nor is it a "giant aircraft carrier" for the US.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
137 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24887 readers
2946 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS