US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is gearing up for a potential Senate or presidential run in 2028, igniting excitement among progressives nationwide. #AOC2028
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is gearing up for a potential Senate or presidential run in 2028, igniting excitement among progressives nationwide. #AOC2028
I agree that the distinction between defensive and offensive aid is little more than a rhetorical trick, but that’s a long ways from being a “genocide apologist”. To my knowledge, she does not deny that Israel is committing a genocide, and she does not pretend that it’s justified. I think it’s fair to call Biden a genocide apologist because he actively participated in obfuscating the reality of what was happening and attacking critics.
Foreign policy is complicated, and there is room for someone to think pragmatically that cutting off “defensive aid” will make things worse instead of better. I disagree with that someone, but I’d much rather have them as opposition than someone who is principally in favor of a Genocide.
If you know what they’re doing, and she knows what they’re doing, and you know she knows what they’re doing, then we should all be fairly clear that she’s not absolving herself from complicity.
In the case of the US-Israel relationship, the financials are more complicated than the foreign policy, and there are no consequential earmarks. The input is either more funding, or less funding.
From one approach, if the US funds Israel’s Iron Dome, Israel will have more money from not spending their own on defenses, and what they didn’t have to spend on defensive weapons, they will then spend on offensive weapons. This chain of causality is fairly direct and reasonable to trace, IMHO. In fact, it’s quite possible that they directly route gifts for defensive weapons into offensive weapons- this is Israel we’re talking about, they’re not known for engaging in good faith.
From a second approach, her vote for Iron Dome spending signals that she is holding out for the chance that both sides will de-escalate willingly, and that a peaceful agreement can be negotiated from current positions. This is wishful thinking.
From a third approach, the only thing we have seen with the potential to end the genocide is intervention by Hezbollah, Ansar Allah, or especially Iran. Any prospect of the US, the EU, or an alliance of Arab states putting an end to the genocide militarily is completely without precedent and infeasible. Israel continues to maim Gaza because its economy is still running, and its economy is still running because it has diplomatic ties and defensive systems. If they are subjected to a large number of missiles, their citizens will be forced to permanently retreat to bomb shelters; this will shut down the economy and persuade Israelis to repatriate to their countries of origin (or Germany and the US will take them), because they are wealthy enough and a large fraction of them have dual citizenship. This is the one thing that will certainly end the genocide, running out their defenses until they are confronted with the same onslaught that they have waged against Palestinians. It’s not pretty or peaceful and a few people might die in-between the bomb shelters, but this is how genocides are stopped. The day that Israel runs out of interceptors and the Shahed drones keep flying in is the day they will start negotiating the end of the genocide. Funding defensive missile capacities is simply staving that day off. It is not an intervention that directly kills people, but it is still an American intervention in the Middle East that makes the situation worse and demonstrably causes more innocent people to die.
To be sure, there are several different levels of genocide apologia, and AOC is a few levels down on the scale from your average Republican. But she’s still not clearing the bar for ethical foreign policy. The bar is to treat Israel with at least the same level of response that was given to Russia when it invaded/escalated the war in Ukraine.
It’s really not complicated. It’s only complication is concern for aipac money.
Also you’re saying she is aware it’s a genocide and still approved the sale of weapons to a genocidal regime
AOC has rejected all AIPAC money. Of course they could run dark money ads for her anyways but, if you think that’s likely to happen, you are delusional.
Every foreign policy decision has ramifications that go far beyond the immediate. Israel isn’t going to not have a missile defense shield so, if they don’t get it from us, they will get it from someone else. Maybe Russia, China, or Europe. How does that shake out on the world stage?
Just to clarify again because I’m sure it’s necessary, I do not approve of sending any aid to Israel. I just don’t think that disagreeing with me automatically makes someone a genocide apologist. The world isn’t that simple.
I guess we have no choice then participate in genocide. Good analysis comrade.
What makes you think these should be included in this list?
Not what I said. Fuck off edgelord.
How else should I interpret that?
I don’t care. You’re going on my block list.
Removed by mod
Russia and China have been diplomatically opposing this genocide (I would argue with insufficient effort, but still they are the other side of the fence and recognize Palestine and receive Hamas delegations)
Why would you knee jerk throw them in the “bad guy” genocidal category when it’s YOU and YOUR POLITICIAN that are actually funding and sending the bombs that kill children? Do you not understand the irony and how chauvinistic this comes off?
I dunno, why would you say I did that?
Rule number one of foreign policy is that countries don’t have friends, they have interests. Russia and China have the position they do because they think it’s to their advantage. Both of them are guilty of their own genocides, some ongoing. They are no more the “good guys” than the US. If they decide it’s in their interests to sell weapons to Israel, that’s exactly what they will do.
You post one Uighur body for every Palestinian body I post. How long do you think you can keep up?
Hexbear is cancer.
Mad that your made up genocide has to compete against a real one with a death toll?
do tell
Ok, so? If U.S. does that and even if other countries starts arming them, U.S. will at least have a moral high ground.
There is no evidence any of these countries will give Israel weapons btw.
If there is an arms embargo, Israeli economy tanks since much of it is propped up on the U.S. being the backstop.
Fuck me. I knew that telling you that I don’t want any aid for Israel wouldn’t stop you from trying to convince me. Why the fuck don’t I pay attention to what my brain is telling me?
That was a “for instance”. The point was that any position in foreign policy is going to have more than one impact. I wasn’t making a full argument, and why would I when I already agree with you?
Once maybe. The fact is that the US and Israeli arms industries have commingled and each relies on the other for different expertise. A full arms embargo would certainly lead to at least the risk of Israel trading arms secrets for access to weapons made elsewhere. Israel is not a passive purchaser of weapons or intelligence technology.
We don’t believe you because you support a politician that funds the genocide and use Liberal Zionist arguments we have heard a million times from genocidal liberals
And I think your just a Republican stirring up shit because you spend all your time attacking the very few Democrats who actually acknowledge the genocide.
I have never once even “supported” AOC in this discussion. Pointing out that she isn’t a genocide apologist isn’t support, it’s just reality.
I do personally support her because (among other things) she is better than any Republican or Democrat likely to replace her. If you have a better candidate then I say “great!”. Run them against Pelosi, Schumer, or any one of hundreds of Democrats that are worse on this and a myriad of other issues.
That’s the difference between you and I. You want to aura farm off of tragedy while I want to do something productive to end it. If you actually have a shit, you wouldn’t be wasting your time attacking the Democrats closest to your position. Replace AOC with your perfect candidate and you will have achieved absolutely nothing.
“If you hate the party that is complicit in Palestinian genocide then you must belong to the other party that is also complicit in Palestinian genocide. I literally cannot imagine anyone having a principled opposition to genocide.”
Not at all. Just the ones that act like it. One more hexbear for the block list. Pack of fucking hyenas.
“Everyone who disagrees with me is a Republican” and other calming fantasies to soothe the panicking Liberal mind
The gap between how much you know and how much you think you know could fit a small celestial body
This “reality” isn’t supported by reality. She is a liberal Zionist and Zionism demands the extermination and ethnic cleaning of Palestinians in order to function. You don’t support defensive weapons while being anti-genocide when those defensive weapons aid in furthering the genocide.
No, the entire economy is propped by the U.S. backstop. Israeli bonds, currency, financial assets are valued highly because U.S. defends it. It’s not always as explicit as military ‘aid’.
Also, if these are the kind of arguments AOC is thinking about, she deserves to lose. I’m not attacking you, but AOC.
I couldn’t care less what AOC deserves. There is no realistic scenario where AOC gets replaced with somebody better on Gaza. Meanwhile there are Hundreds of Democrats that desperately need replacing and could actually swing the balance, but we get stuck in-fighting over AOC. I want things to get better, and you aren’t helping.
What does that have to do with anything I mentioned? Did I say anything about other Democrats?
No you didn’t. That’s exactly my point. Pay attention.
I don’t care if you’re convinced, but I would like to know if this is because you think what is happening there is some degree of morally unacceptable, or if you just think the money would be better spent at home.
Edit:
You don’t have to respond to this but this is for the benefit of others reading.
In AOC’s case, you have claimed she believes it is a genocide. If she does in fact believe it is a genocide, then she is providing material support (money and weapons), directly to what she believes is a genocide. She is a member of Congress and could use that position to passively sit by with an ineffective protest no vote or even voting present/abstaining in every instance (although you could still argue someone like this should at least be doing more personally, in the end, policies are what matter for elected officials), to what she believes is an actual genocide. Thus, “genocide supporter” logically follows.
If she does not believe it is a genocide, but she thinks it is morally problematic, then while perhaps the label “genocide supporter” could be put into slight contention (those that read Israeli officials’ own statements such as this one 2 months ago on the matter would probably ask how AOC came to another conclusion), it is still in turn problematic that she would materially support something that she believes is morally problematic, and you should find this unacceptable.
If on the other hand, she does not find anything morally problematic there at all, but you think it is at minimum morally unacceptable, then isn’t that a legitimate criticism of an elected official who is supposed to represent her constituents to say that you think they are supporting something that you find to be morally unacceptable?