AOC exposed, again: 'Progressive' mask slips in vote backing Zionist war machine

By Musa Iqbal

A few days ago, U‌S House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) voted against a measure that would prevent the Zionist entity's aerial defense systems from receiving $500 million in additional military aid from American taxpayers.

The measure was proposed by Republican Congress member Marjorie Taylor Greene and supported by members of her own so-called "progressive" squad, including Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.

AOC immediately came under fire for her rejection of the amendment, and rightly so.

The US has spent billions of dollars on the Zionist entity's military apparatus over the years, which enables its genocide in Gaza as well as the ongoing aggression against other countries, including Iran.

In the last month alone, Israel has carried out acts of aggression against Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, and Yemen, resulting in the loss of life—totaling well over one thousand lives lost in a single month due to Zionist bombs.

In an attempt to pathetically defend her actions, AOC posted a statement, completely exposing her brand of liberal Zionism. To truly understand the criminality of her actions, it is essential to break this statement down piece by piece.

AOC begins her statement with: "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."

This is not accurate, particularly in the military context. Israel is the aggressor—as mentioned, within the previous month, it has bombed five different countries. It started an unprovoked and unjustified war against the Islamic Republic of Iran on June 13, which ended 12 days later with the regime declaring a unilateral ceasefire.

It launched aggression against Syria, conducted strikes against Yemeni civilian targets, and violated the ceasefire with Lebanon multiple times. Above all, it continues to commit genocidal war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza nearly two years on.

Therefore, there is no difference between "offensive" and "defensive" military aid. The Iron Dome and other Israeli air defense systems allow the Zionist entity to defend itself while committing barbarous war crimes against people across the region.

Political commentator Caitlin Johnstone put it best, giving an example only Americans can relate to:

"I didn't give the mass shooter guns and ammunition, I just bought him a bulletproof vest so nobody could stop the massacre."

Moving forward, the AOC statement reads: "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."

It is well understood that the Iron Dome batteries are placed in residential and commercial locations in cities like Tel Aviv, using people as human shields. They are also placed next to critical military targets like the Weizmann Institute and Israeli Intelligence Unit 822 operating buildings.

If anyone is adding to the death count of non-combatants (I will not call them civilians, as the Zionist entity has active conscription and has one of the largest reserve personnel, drawing from so-called "civilian" populations), it would be the Zionist occupation itself.

It purposely places military structures in areas occupied by settlers, and its settler population continues to be engaged in an active encroachment of Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

AOC ended her statement with: "I remain focused on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza."

This is probably the most obscene part of the statement. Acknowledging the genocide being conducted by the Zionist occupation, AOC attempts again to make a distinction between "offensive" and "defensive" munitions, which are somehow different in the hands of an aggressor.

The defense of the occupier and aggressor is an act of active offense against those who are willing to defend themselves from the former.

It is an attempt to describe the genocide as a war of equal footing instead of a resistance to settler-colonialism, and of course, in true liberal-Zionist tradition, seeks ultimately to equate the aggressor with the victim.

Make no mistake—if AOC is interested in the so-called "defense capabilities" to protect civilians, why has she not moved any legislation forward removing the terrorist designations of resistance groups like Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or even the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, all groups that have resisted the (in her own words) offensive munitions of Israel?

This is not a lapse in judgment or a political error. This is AOC by design. AOC—and often, other "progressives"—are fulfilling their roles by being "dissident" voices to the status quo of neoliberalism.

By labeling themselves as "socialists" or "progressives," the role of politicians in the US, like AOC, is the normalization and repackaging of imperialism's goals and objectives.

But don't just listen to the political analysts and commentators. Look at their voting records and see for yourself. When it comes to the moments where it matters, the so-called progressives are on record voting for sanctions on countries under siege, like Syria, before the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad government.

They are on record condemning Iran for resisting foreign-backed riots, like in late 2022. They repackage imperialism as human rights issues, encouraging US intervention based on "saving lives"—the exact defense AOC just used in her defense of arming the Zionist regime's defenses.

The limits of the "progressive" strain within the US Congress have been tried, tested, and conclusively failed to meet the moment, as they were not designed to deliver any authentic stoppage to the Zionist war machine.

Americans must contend with the fact that they have to think outside the box of political representation (as their representatives do not represent the common American, but more so, specialist interests) to advance their political demands.

Otherwise, disappointment is just around the corner.

Musa Iqbal is a US-based researcher and an editor at Vox Ummah.

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.)

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir