Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a US representative, said on Wednesday that she will oppose any future US military aid to Israel, including for defensive systems.
In a statement on social media, Ocasio-Cortez said that Israel was fully capable of funding “Iron Dome and other defensive systems”, and that “consistent with my voting record to date, I will not support Congress sending more taxpayer dollars and military aid to a government that consistently ignores international law and US law”.
Her remarks on Wednesday follow reports that she pledged to oppose any future military aid to Israel during a New York City Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) forum on Tuesday evening.
“Our allies who need our military aid must understand that we will provide it consistent with the Leahy amendment and the foreign assistance act”, Ocasio-Cortez added, referring to a law which prohibits the US from providing military support to army units that violate human rights.
According to City & State, which obtained a partial recording of the DSA forum, Ocasio-Cortez told members: “I have not once ever voted to authorize funding to Israel, and I will never,” adding that “the Israeli government should be able to finance their own weapons if they seek to arm themselves.”
She is definitely not strong on foreign policy, this much was apparent when she spoke on complicated on complex issues at the Munich Security Conference and struggled to be fully coherent.
But there’s still time for her to hone it. What was her path to getting here?
How is refusing further involvement with Israel a middle ground? She is absolutely saying NO to Israel.
After previously voting to approve funding for the Iron Dome.
It’s true; she did vote last year, and openly stated, that she for funding Israel’s defense, and received a lot of backlash and criticism for it. Thankfully she’s started to take the right response to the issue now, but it was super poorly handled at the time because she doubled down not realizing that’s about as good being open to funding the defense for Nazi Germany.
I like AOC, and think she’s a great fit for the senate, but I often criticise her political instincts at this point in her career.
Similar sentiment here. It does no one any good to pretend like her recent pivot is how she has acted the entire time.
I’m hopeful that she continues on this new path.
Something as serious as defending taiwan against the second economic and military power china is not something you can talk about without days of reflection. I find ridiculous to be so hard on her for that specific question
Their problem isn’t with her position per se, but with how she chooses her position. Trying to create a middle path where one side is insert evil thing is too common with AOC, is (how I interpreted) the point.
Exactly. Its the calculating. I find it extremely reminiscent of how Pelosi did buisness.
Oh I’m specifically talking about the MTG proposal, and how AOC instead of leading on the issue, got outflanked by MTG, then voted present (basically “supportive” of defensive weapons, because she didn’t vote in favor of the MTG proposal, interpreted as acting in favor of Israel), then ultimately voting against the full bill.
Basically, she hit all the wrong beats in all the wrong order. Mike breaks it down in greater detail here.
Among the pack, AOC should have been leading Rashida and Omar. Instead AOC got outflanked on the left during the debate phase, to ultimately vote against the resolution. It just shows an inability to read the moment, an inability to lead, and a kind of calculating nature that I think many Americans, truly can-not-stand. Its that Obama/ Clintonian/ Pelosi/ Schumber type of calculating, where instead of doing the morally right thing, even if unpopular, is an afterthought.
It’s like you freak play “fantasy football” with this shit.
It only looks that way to the utterly politically illiterate.
Yes. AOC has corrected for a mistake she made in the past. It doesn’t make up for how she made the mistake, but it does show she is willing to correct/ is responsive to critisism, both of which are important qualities in a Democratic party Presidential hopeful. She ticked up a bit because she showed the ability to change (not because of the article).
And if you don’t like politics or news… How about just stfu and go cruise other stuff on lemmy? You aren’t obligated to read every horse race article/ political beat article if its not interesting to you and not something you follow or try to understand. You dont’ have to have an opinion here.