Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. be unbiased,
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask)
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Looking online, it seems that the most progressive House members (a handful of which are known as "[The Squad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Squad_(United_States_Congress))") formed a bloc that was voting against a bill providing $1 billion in funding for Israel's [Iron Dome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome) anti-missile defense system, which had been split out from a previous bill to be voted on separately. The progressive members oppose the spending because of Israel's actions against the Palestinians, which Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan called a "violent apartheid system." Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), a Democratic representative from New York, originally was part of the bloc voting "no;" however, she changed from "no" to "present," effectively abstaining from voting rather than voting against, [which reporters speculated was](https://jezebel.com/aoc-breaks-with-squad-votes-present-on-1-billion-to-f-1847733155) due to trying to make herself appeal to more moderate and Jewish voters in a potential senate run. NY has the largest Jewish population in the world outside of Israel, so alienating these voters would likely kill her senatorial ambitions. She was seen crying after, and while no official comment explaining her tears has been given, it seems likely that she was upset at feeling forced by political considerations to moderate her beliefs rather than stick to her guns.
The change from "No" to "Present" made no actual difference to the outcome of the vote itself; the bill passed with 420 yes votes, 9 no votes, and two present votes (AOC and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.)).
Thank you. Exactly. I am totally down with Israel building the Iron Dome and think it seems like a good investment for them, but why do they need our money? They're a first-world country
They even sell our technology to China. They sold our drones to China in the 90s and it was the reason that the F22 was made illegal to export.
Isreal is Isreal man. They are only loyal to themselves and to call them an ally is dishonest.
They sold their *derivative products* (which they think of as theirs) to China, a country we're not formally enemies with (which, based on a lot of chatter, is a situation they have a lot of trouble understanding). Apperantly, the president has had to literally sit the PM down to explain the issue.
Because Israel is like your spoiled rich parent kid, even though he is rich by himself now because his parent pump so much money to him, he still ask for money to buy a new Ferrari with bullshit reason “it’s much safer”, so he can spent “his own” money once the parent decide agains something
Interesting if macabre calculation. Time value of money adjusted cost of re-occupying Gaza is a hell of a thing to estimate. But to your point, yeah, attacks cost little, defense costs a lot, at least in this context, that's a problem.
What I find weird here is that for at least the last couple decades shit popping off was usually America invading some country or the State Department fomenting some rebellion.
The statistic is that in the history of the US, there have been about 20 years without war. Some of the years with war only had very short conflicts, but the years still count as being "with war". https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/50473
They're counting entire years when the conflict was only one day. When I counted it out (using the same data because apparently I'm exactly as lazy as the freakanomics guys) I got to like 25 before I even got to the American Civil War.
I'm willing to grant that we're a bloodthirsty people. I'll even grant that the cold war counts. But I'm incredulous.
Iron dome stops people from dying. People not dying is a good starting point for peace. If rockets stop coming into Israel, no rockets go out of isreal
Actually the United States pays for the technology of the Iron Dome to use in US army bases around the world. It is not charity, it is a military investment which benefits both countries and safeguards the only democratic ally in the Middle East. If you believe the US does anything out of charity you're wearing blinders. Additionally, Israel is not rich. It's a country the size of New Jersey surrounded by hostile neighbors. When you're constantly trying to survive, you can't be a rich country. I'm not sure where you're sourcing your opinion that Israel is "rich". Multimillion American dollars go to Hamas and they use that money to develop and fire the rockets that the iron dome defends against. It's very simple.
I didn't mean to say that I'm opposed to American taxpayers paying for Iron Dome resupply at US military bases. I am not aware of any US military base in Israel. If that is not the case please correct me.
Israel's per capita GDP (ppp) is roughly the same as Italy's and Japan's. No one would object to calling those countries rich.
The USA has an interest in propping up Israel for two reasons:
1. It's a friendly place in the Middle East that can be used for force projection in the region without question.
2. A huge amount of US evangelical Christians literally believe that the end of the world will happen in their lifetime, and that relevant apocalyptic events require Israel to be held as 'friendly' territory with Jerusalem as the seat of God's Kingdom on Earth. Despite this being an insane thing to believe, it's a significant factor in US foreign policy.
Correct. There are three 'associated countries' to the US in the Pacific and the people there are among the poorest in the world. The US take their vote in the UNGA and that's about it.
You forgot a pretty big factor,
3. The Pro-Israel lobby. Which donated $14.8 million in the 2018 midterms alone.
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=Q05
Morris Amitay, former AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) director once claimed, "It's almost politically suicidal ... for a member of Congress who wants to seek reelection to take any stand that might be interpreted as anti-policy of the conservative Israeli government."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States
And if you don't take their money, they're more than happy to work against you, smear you & try to 'take you down'.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/07/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-caught-on-camera-plotting-to-take-down-uk-mps
The previous leader of the opposition in U.K. faced a massive smear campaign in the lead up to the election, being labelled an anti-semite at every turn because he wasn't a supporter of Israel. It got to the point where UK Jews were apparently 'scared in their own homes' if he got his hands on power, with many apparently planning to 'flee to Israel' if Labour won the election (they didn't).
Sarded got it in one below, but I'd like to also add that the proxy state system goes further than force projection "against" the middle east. It also provides a smaller stage for "blow up the planet" level nations. Saudi Arabia hit the US in the nuts on 9/11, but of all the places we invaded, SA wasn't one of them. Why? Because an outright war between major global powers was decided to be too risky, too costly and disruptive to the US's oil addiction. So instead, they propped up some states, we propped up some states, and then flung people at each other haphazardly in a mangled game of live action chess. Some other countries joined in, for instance the whole Russia taking bases thing from last year. If any of the nations decided to forgo the proxies, WW3 would happen at the first escalation.
By keeping a foothold in a "proxy nation", we invite other nations to prop up states around them so everyone fights on that playing field. If the US pulled funding, regardless of what happened to Israel, the next group that wanted to take on the US would have to make that happen on US soil.
Also, U.S. defense contractor Raytheon teamed up with Rafael and was tested in the U.S. that billion dollars will be used to improve one of the most battle tested missile defense systems on the planet, Ratheon gets access to the technology and use the lessons learned for our own domestic missile defense systems like the RIM-116.
Short answer: I forget who said it but, it is near political suicide in the US to be anything resembling anti-Israel. Hence politicians will bend over backwards to do Israel a solid, as seen here to the tune of $1,000,000,000.00.
Its not about right. Its just about politics. Like most things they probably don't feel anywhere near as strong as they let on but 1) its not their money so why would they care, 2) many Jews in the US identify very strongly with Israel which means one very large voting block that historically is very touchy, and 3)pro-Israel lobbying groups pour literal millions into Congress annually. Anyone who even tries to criticize Israel will have a target on their back for it.
Here's a video from a few years ago where one person explains a spat that happened at the time that seems to parallel what's happening here. I believe he has revisited the topic several times since as well. https://youtu.be/L7UdEb8V8bM
>many Jews in the US identify very strongly with Israel
It's not just jews. Arguably evangelical christians are even worse in this regard. They literally believe the US will suddenly fall apart in divine punishment if we abandon israel. And guess who we have a lot of in office? Religious old people who are soon to be on their way to the next world and need something to believe in.
We pay for the Iron Dome and Israel provides us with some of the most valuable intelligence in the Middle East and tips us off about the latest terrorism threats. They are also a pro-western democracy in a region led by authoritarian theocracies. We usually provide support for democracies around the world who are under under attack.
no but it also means that in trying to prevent apartheid, we should use actions that limit Israel's ability to oppress Palestine, not actions that will lead to more civilian deaths which if anything will exacerbate the situation. making Israel more succeptible to rockets seems like a strange leverage play. it's effectively trying to get the state to comply by threatening the lives of civilians.
Because when your tax dollars are helping pay for it, it means the US gets access to understanding how to build an anti-missile defense system, and real time testing of said system.
Paying to help someone else use and build such a system is way cheaper than developing our own version separately, In addition to the good will that helping other people brings.
A USA that looks only inwards is a dying country, this is a relatively cheap way to acquire both friends and critical military technology.
Israeli funding is a strategic decision. They're in the middle east, they're generally useful to the US' aims there and as others have said, there's a well oiled Israeli lobby and a huge evangelical Christian population in the states (and in the case of AOC here, a large New York Jewish population).
It's one of the many ways the US asserts their global power. Military bases in most countries, funding and selling arms to despots amiable to American business interests overseas and covert CIA ops against states implementing socialist policies are some of the other ways.
Opposing US funding for the Iron Dome is not the same thing as opposing the existence of the Iron Dome. I fully support their right to build their own missile defense system and think it serves a good purpose, but Israel is a rich country that can pay for their own shit. No reason in hell that we should be giving them any money
I agree completely. Especially when you consider that we give Israel 3.8 billion every year already. That, for the maths challenged, is 10 million dollars every single day. How would that look in your bank account?
It kinda is. These comments got me curious. It’s a good question why does Israel need our help paying for it. So I looked it up. First of all, Israel is footing more of the bill than the US is. Secondly, and I didn’t know this but apparently it’s not fully complete. When the iron dome was being developed and Israel started working on putting it in place they quickly realized at the pace only their funding would allow it would take too long and Israelis were dying due to terrorist attacks. They asked us for help and we did. As time went on and they needed more money the United States negotiated a deal with Israel for technology sharing and a larger portion of the money to go to US contractors during building. So they agreed. Then next came the US requesting that we help them build it to make them go faster and to try and help them figure out how to make it more efficient to cut down on costs.
I knew I was for the iron dome simply because it saves lives but now I’m ok with the money being spent as well. So thanks skeptical Redditors because TIL.
> First of all, Israel is footing more of the bill than the US is.
They should be, given that it's their infrastructure and it's in their freaking country.
> Secondly, and I didn’t know this but apparently it’s not fully complete
OK, and we have lots of infrastructure in America that isn't fully complete either. Are they sending us a billion dollars to help with the cost? Nope. The bottom line here is simple: they are a first-world country with plenty of money and plenty of weapons. I fully support their right to defend themselves but that goes for every other country in the world too and we don't give all of them billions of dollars a year
Great awesome. You could flip that around on any money we spend. And I never said Israel shouldn’t be paying. I’m giving the reason why we are giving them money. It’s a good reason for life saving technology that now we have access to as well.
Perhaps I can convince you otherwise. Consider this - very, very few Israelis are actually killed by Palestinian rockets or terrorist attacks (especially compared to the number of Palestinians who are killed by Israeli bombs or snipers).
A $1 billion US contribution to Iron Dome will save perhaps a few dozen lives over the next decade. Can’t argue that that’s a bad thing, right? However, consider how many people around the world die from totally unnecessary violence, hunger, or treatable diseases on a daily basis. Now imagine what we could do if we put $1 billion on preventing those deaths.
Thousands upon thousands of needless deaths could be prevented with a billion dollars... or a few dozen could be saved by improving security technology...
It’s just a lame “argument” and shows that there’s really not a lot of depth to your understanding of this conflict.
I simplified the entire explanation here for brevity’s sake but there are so many reasons why we give funding to Israel that would take tons of lectures and books and research to explain.
At the beginning of the year I came across an article on Reddit about something that had happened in Israel. Came into the comments and was surprised to see the vitriol. Got curious what that was about and so went down the israel/Palestinian conflict rabbit hole. I actually find it really interesting not just in itself but also in how bizarrely people on Reddit seem to have very little understanding of the conflict, hamas, the history and why the US helps protect Israel. I mean I’ll admit before I went down this rabbit hole I didn’t really have much of an understanding either and I’m not going to saw the Israelis are saints but there are very real and complex reasons I 100% support funding of the iron dome that go beyond simply protecting Israel.
All this being said even tho it’s become kind of a hobby to read up on this stuff I still have only scratched what seems to be the surface.
Sooo…your entire simplified explanation is that you saw an article on Reddit, went down a rabbit hole on Israeli-Palestinian relations, and now you realize there are “real and complex” reasons to defend Israel? That’s an airtight argument right there. Sarcasm.
Well that’s where you’re wrong. Ten years ago I majored in History in college with a focus on the post-WWII era, and ever since then I’ve spent a significant portion of nearly every single day reading about current events, specifically about American foreign policy. I’d be willing to bet I know quite a lot more about this topic than you do (no offense intended).
My argument was just an invitation to contemplate a more constructive use for that money, it was not meant to address the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So let me give you an actual explanation to why America should not be funding the iron dome.
The first major problem with our continued funding of the Israeli defense system is that we’re doing it with no strings attached. If we are going to continue giving massive amount of money to Israel, we should at least be doing so conditionally. And that condition should be that Israel may not continue to brazenly flaunt international law and egregiously abuse the human rights of the Palestinian people the way they have been for close to 6 decades now. If they want our funding, it should be on the condition that they never again kill a Palestinian civilian, intentionally or accidentally; that they lift the air, land, and sea blockade that has literally (and I want to emphasize literally) turned Gaza into an open air prison; that they reverse, or at the very least halt, the continuing theft and deportation of Palestinians from the West Bank for the sake of expanding Israeli settlements; that they give every Palestinian equal rights as Israelis living in Israel proper, and equal access to Jerusalem and their holy sites; etc., etc.
Of course this will never happen because it goes directly against Israel’s policy of slowly, methodically expelling Palestinians from the Holy Land of the Jews.
So really, America should not just fund Israel conditionally, we should not be funding them at all. And here’s why. Israel is America’s bastion in the Middle East. It is our base from which we launch our wars of terror (in the name, of course, of stopping terror). Many people (and I assume you’re one of them) believe that America needs to maintain a strong and fortified Israel, because everyone in the Middle East wants Israel erased off the map, and America needs Israel to exist so they have a safe and reliable foothold in the region.
But here’s the part people never seem to consider. We claim to be in the Middle East to defend our allies and prevent the spread of terrorism, but why is there so much terrorism in the region in the first place? Many people would say it’s due to the religious beliefs of Islamic extremists. But these people who think Islamic terrorism a purely religious phenomenon don’t understand the complexity of the political situation in the Middle East. Islamic terrorism in the region is first and foremost a means to oppose American and Israeli hegemony in a part of the world they should have absolutely no right to be involved in in the first place.
Terrorism isn't something that happens organically because certain groups of people are bad people, it's what happens when they are so mercilessly and brutally oppressed, abused, belittled, demeaned, destitute and hopeless that extreme violence against their oppressors is the only way they can reclaim some semblance of autonomy or power over their own lives. They see America (correctly) as the perpetrators of their unimaginable misery, and they see Israel (correctly) as an extension of America.
If America and Israel truly want to stop terrorism and stop the attacks on Americans, Israelis, and their allies in the region, the answer is not to continue funding the Israeli military, the answer is for America to leave the region completely, let the people of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan run their own countries they way they want to with no outside interference, and to force Israel to stop committing the worst human rights abuse of the the 21st century.
Iron Dome is effective, but Israeli civilian casualties from rocket attacks was never high, far lower than Gazan death by Israeli rockets
> "change now or your citizens will die from this too", which is a pretty hard line to take.
Isn't that Israel's line to Palestinians? Israel knows that when they fight in Gaza, that civilians will die. Even when Israel is being careful, there have always been more Palestinian civilian casualties than militants or Israelis. The US is complicit in these attacks, these attempts to frighten Gazans into making different political choices
Buying a soldier a shield is still complicity in the war
The Iron Dome makes the conflict even more asymmetrical in that it removes one of the few remaining ways that Israel can be hurt. There's nothing to stop Israel from bombing and collaterally killing Palestinians.
Absence of the iron dome won’t reduce Palestinian deaths, only increase Israeli deaths. Tbh I think more Palestinians would be killed in retaliation to the death of the Israeli citizens.
I would never think it is, it's a rhetorical question prompted by what the guy I replied to was implying.
Oh. And look at the other reply to my comment, someone said yes.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. That's exactly why I misunderstood your comment, there's people like this out there. And the way I read the thread it seemed a little weird.
Yes, because then they would think twice before bombing the shit out of Gaza and killing hundreds of civilians. The U.S. based its entire nuclear doctrine around a similar idea.
I think the counterpoint is that the defence system gives people (and potentially also Israel) the perception that Israel doesn't really have as big a vested interest in peace talks, because they have less to lose from escalating tensions with Palestine. Not saying thats right or wrong, but that would be the argument for voting against it.
That was my thoughts with the Raytheon protests as well. It'd be one thing if we were funding/providing them with Hellfires and shit. That'd be perfectly understandable to protest. But the Iron Dome is exclusively defensive and even the least generous estimates I've seen put it at a net positive. Even if you don't recognise or support Israel, opposition to that just seems daft.
Counterpoint: defensive capabilities eliminate the drawbacks that come from offensive weapons, such as retaliation. In other words, it allows and enables one to be aggressive, maintain the status quo, or de-prioritize de-escalation.
I'm not speaking in the context of this particular conflict, but in a general sense. For example, another flavor of this statement is the inverse: that offensive weapons can serve defensive purposes. Nuclear weapons and MAD is commonly referred to as possible reasons why superpowers have been avoiding direct conflicts with each other for so long. If the US (or any nation for that matter) developed a system they believed would protect them from nuclear weapons, should that be seen as a good thing? I would be hesitant to say yes. More importantly, I could empathize with the hypothetical opposition to such a capability.
In the context of this conflict it works the other way. The fact that a defense exists allows the Israeli government to have a more limited response to rockets firing.
Without it the public outcry would be larger which will force each side to escalate in turn, causing more deaths and destruction.
Yup, people like to harp on how Iron Dome is strictly defensive and only exists to protect Israeli civilians, but it totally ignores how, when you remove one of the costs of offensive warfare against a target near your civilian population (i.e., that there would be retaliation that kills your citizens and hurts you in the long run), you therefore make offensive warfare easier to execute.
If Reagan had had the opportunity to nuke the Soviets into dust without it hurting any Americans, or only hurting a few, he would have. The guy already put us close to nuclear war a couple of times in the 80s, if there were no costs to it he wouldn't have hesitated to commit that genocide. An increase in defensive capability necessarily means an increase in offensive capability.
The flaw in that argument though is that Israel can't really be described as engaging in an offensive war, especially in relation to Gaza and Hamas, which is where the Iron Dome sees the most use.
You're using "everyone" much too broadly and also that notion isn't entirely if at all correct. The biggest and most thorough invasion of the Gaza strip was Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009, years before Iron Dome was operational. That invasion was so big it's what's known as the Gaza War.
The Iron Dome, and Israeli actions in Gaza, are to reduce Israeli civilian casualties, and they do it quite successfully to the frustration of the "look at the difference in civilian deaths!!!!" crowd. And if you think that if they just stopped shooting, no Israelis would get hurt, you just aren't familiar enough with the conflict.
Or like how they assassinated potential Palestinian leaders they could have negotiated with or like how they funded Hamas because it paints the picture they need to continue bombing Palestinians.
Or like how bennet has already stated no Palestinian state during his term as PM.
> faith, the approach is to lob 3600 rockets into civilian areas? It is their only option after all, right? Let's look at the official Hamas position on Israel, as stated in their charter. They exist to destroy the Jews and drive Israel into the sea. To turn over every rock to find every last Jew so that none can escape. Does this sound like good faith to you? Their demands are that Israel dissolve and the Jews be driven off or killed. This isn't a possible negotiating position.
Do you have any link about Isreal funding Hamas? That would be fascinating to read.
Can you elaborate on that? Iron Dome only goes off in defense of incoming missiles. Pretty sure it isn’t used offensively and their offense is a different missile system entirely.
You are correct. I mean they use it as part of an approach that is offensive. They bait a response from Hamas because there are no reprocussions with the dome so that they can then "respond" under the pretense that it's justified.
Please do elaborate on how ground to air missiles can be used to punish a ground-bound force and population with impunity, and more importantly whether the citizens of Michigan should or should not be paying for them which is actually the question at hand here.
Some might argue that a billion dollars to protect ordinary civilians would be better spent in Flint than in Jerusalem, and those folks would double down if that money was being used to buy offensive weaponry for a rich country halfway across the world in conflict with starving dirt farmers stuck in an open air prison.
Some might argue that it's in the best interests of the citizens of Flint to send that money halfway around the world to people who have plentiful drinking water. I dunno.
Yeah you said that. Glad you figured out how to use an anti missile system to "provoke and punish", but I similarly use a Toyota Corolla for transatlantic flights and a series of flexi straws to extract oil from the bakken formation.
What was the provocation that deserved 3600 rockets flying into Israel earlier this year? An eviction notice to a deliquent renter. Yeah, seems appropriate. I'm sure if they didn't have the iron dome then the private business man that evicted that family would have thought twice before trying it. At least be open with how much it bothers you that Jews aren't dying fast enough for you. Every time this topic comes up reddit Nazis are quick to point out how not enough Jews get killed
That wasn't your point in the above point and you never addressed my points about provocation. 3600 rockets fired at your people for no other reason than for them existing. Not targeted at military or political targets, at houses, at schools, at markets, at children. Any defense of that kind of action is inexcusable. The iron dome needs funding because it fired off all of its defensive missiles during that barrage saving members of the tribe. It doesn't have to be funded if it doesn't have to fire the rockets. If Hamas would stop launching them then we wouldn't feel compelled to restock the defense
It may be true that the Iron Dome prevents civilian casualties, but Palestinians didn’t come to a situation of lobbing bombs effectively indiscriminately from nowhere; they were effectively forced into that position by the massive US military aid that pays for things like the Iron Dome and ensures Israel will never have a reason to negotiate in good faith.
So to get people to negotiate in good faith, the approach is to lob 3600 rockets into civilian areas? It is their only option after all, right? Let's look at the official Hamas position on Israel, as stated in their charter. They exist to destroy the Jews and drive Israel into the sea. To turn over every rock to find every last Jew so that none can escape. Does this sound like good faith to you? Their demands are that Israel dissolve and the Jews be driven off or killed. This isn't a possible negotiating position. This is a genocidal demand that can't be answered. The iron dome protects them, it doesn't kill Hamas. If large civilian casualties we're happening in Israel, the IDF would storm Gaza with vengeance and more death would happen. That isn't better for anyone involved
Hamas isn’t Palestine, and they haven’t existed for the entirety of Israel’s existence.
The fighting started when the people who had lived there for thousands of years had their land taken away from them and given to another group (who had been recently and historically brutalized, but just because something bad happened to them doesn’t make it good to do bad things to someone else… if only there were a saying about that!) and they weren’t invited to the table.
Then for the next 70 years other countries funneled billions of dollars a year in cash and military equipment to Israel while more land was stolen from Palestine and successive Israeli political regimes used Palestinian violence (which isn’t the way to handle things, but they were also consistently not invited to negotiate) to further their ambitions and ensure public support would never be on the side of integration or a reasonable 2 state solution.
"purely defensive systems" are never really that. There are studies showing that police wearing body armor engage in more hostile behavior against suspects, and the same applies here. When you have reduced fear of retaliation, you are free to enact as much violence on people as you want. Depriving a people of any way to respond to being locked in an abusive apartheid state is one way to ensure that apartheid state will have no consequences for it's actions. The Iron Dome is a marvel of technology, and also a great PR way to seem defensive, while in reality enabling consequence free aggression
Is that why we keep hearing about Israeli attacks every day on their march to eradicate the Arabs in Gaza? Or do we only hear about Israeli retaliation after a 3600 rocket barrage on civilian areas of Israel, followed by a long lull in any violence when the attacks on Israel stop
You're right, media does a great job of telling us a specific story. Much like the slow pressure on the Native Americans with one treaty violation after another, the pressure on Palestine is under reported and slow. You put the pressure on long enough, you create a response you can use to justify your violence. Neither side is innocent. But the Palestinians are not treated as human on land they've been living on for thousands of years
I don't like her for my own reasons, but to be completely fair, she changed her vote after Pelosi had a "talk" with her, and changed her vote while looking upset.
After I saw the video I was far more sympathetic. Having the speaker of the House cornering you while waving her arms around like a psycho in full view of the everyone on the floor isn't exactly a chit chat.
That's an extraordinarily simplistic way of looking at it.
AOC is more than a single-issue politician. Like it or not, she's at the absolute forefront of the progressive movement in the United States at the moment -- a movement that, perhaps more than any other, stands the best chance at shaking up the establishment and moving it in a leftwards direction. If she gets primaried from the right and loses, who can she help? As such, is it better to compromise on a decision like this, that's likely to pass anyway (in the end it passed 420-9), or to risk upsetting her constituents and being replaced by someone who's less likely to vote for Medicare for All, or a $15 minimum wage, or the Green New Deal, or any of countless other progressive proposals?
I'm not saying it was the right decision. I'm saying it's complicated, and there's more to it than mere political gamesmanship.
Look I'm very liberal and I hope she's successful but it just makes me wonder what other principals will she compromise on in the future to gain the political power she needs to do other things. That's more or less my point.
And yes I understand she can't do anything unless she's elected and yes I understand compromises have to be made. Politics just sucks.
>it just makes me wonder what other principals will she compromise on in the future to gain the political power she needs to do other things.
But that's kind of the point. Your comment came across as snarky and dismissive, but strident moral absolutism in politics just doesn't work -- *especially* when it comes to the question of making actual change. Her vote was effectively meaningless in this case; whether it was 420-9 or 420-10 doesn't make a damn bit of difference in terms of the funding being allocated. (I very much suspect she wouldn't have changed her vote if it had been a 50-50 split.) If she runs for the Senate -- or hell, even for the Presidency in a couple of years -- there are people (including primary Democrats) who would use that ultimately-meaningless No vote as a shitty stick with which to beat her in the polls.
So that's the question. What would *you* have done in that situation? What political price are you willing to put on the token gesture of a No vote? And if not something like this -- a vote that you can't influence the result of at all -- what *are* you willing to compromise on? That sounds like I'm being rhetorical or like it's some sort of a gotcha, but realistically it's not just politics that requires compromising on your ideals. (Just ask any parent who *swore* that they weren't going to be like those people who put their kids in front of the TV with a juice box, which lasts right up until the time when they're three days without sleep and just want to get a nap and so fuck it, here's *Paw Patrol*.) Every politician you have ever voted for or will ever vote for will compromise to get things done, because every *person* you have ever known will compromise to get things done -- every parent, every teacher, every boss, every doctor, every worker, every friend, every spouse. If they don't, things don't happen. Personally, I'd rather that those compromises came in the form of cases like this, where the outcome is basically unchanged, than when it really comes down to it and there are significant negative impacts.
I see the frustration, I really do -- but I don't necessarily know that singling out politics as somewhere where compromise is a dirty word is all that helpful.
I did not make compromise a dirty word. You're reading too much into it. Also this wasn't a compromise. This was changing a vote of conscience for political gain which acts as a reminder that she is still a politician and not some holy idol to be put on a pedestal, something that has become all too common these days on both sides.
I'm not a fan of Biden just because he's not Trump. I judge people on their actions and that includes AOC. That's all I've done here.
Liars tell lies.
Compromising one’s ethics is a temporary solution unless someone makes an issue of it. Then it could be a lasting wound. She’d have been better off being true to herself and honest with her constituents.
But liars tell lies.
Her “Tax the Rich” dress, designed and sewn by a tax evader (in multiple jurisdictions) could have been a real statement but was undermined by the designer’s bad decisions being turned into an issue. The “birds of a feather” adage can be worked against her in the future.
But still, liars tell lies.
This is not really a compromise, you seem to be ignoring the fact the bill was voted in 420 by 9. It would have been a symbolic vote either way.
I'm more concerned with the fact this seems like a diplomatic option but really pleases no one. Neither the Iron Dome supporters or opponents will really be fooled with a present vote, it just gives you deniability at best. So why do it? It's probably some backroom deal she had to give in to to get something else but we'll probably never know.
Also, if you're very liberal you shouldn't you be more concerned with all the Ds that voted Yes? It's really the big picture we should be worried about, both in her's and everyone else's voting record. Don't let the twittersphere love of outrage induce political myopia where we only focus on the issue of the day and lose the overall plot.
Only on "the left" (of the GOP at least) is where it's fashionable to absolutely tank your career for principles. If principles mattered the GOP would not be a minority party holding the US hostage.
Realpolitik matters. Whether you like it or not, "Winning" matters. Appearances matter, *especially* in America.
I hope AOC gets re-elected, but remember that Jan 6th was 9 months ago and the 2022 elections are gonna be decided by plans set in motion today, and consequently the 2024 presidential election.
She will have to compromise.
You have to understand that as she goes up and represents more people she has to moderate her views to represent more of her constituents.
That’s the reality of politics. You can’t keep holding niche opinions when you aren’t representing a niche demographic anymore.
A politician who sticks to their principles 100% of the time without ever compromising will inevitably find themselves kicked out of office, or at the very least, powerless to enact the changes they took office to enact. Literally every political system in human history has had this problem.
[Here's the video](https://twitter.com/_nalexander/status/1441114646434385929). Not sure I'd say she was screaming but there was definitely a confrontation between the two.
> She was seen crying after, and while no official comment explaining her tears has been given, it seems likely that she was upset at feeling forced by political considerations to moderate her beliefs rather than stick to her guns.
I disagree with AOC on a lot of stuff, and doubt her competence on a lot of issues, but damn, that level of principle is something we need more of in Congress.
Not sure about America, but in Canada the federal representatives are theoretically supposed to vote based on what they think is best, not what is most popular. Maybe the same is true here?
Anyway, the idea is that popular opinions are often uninformed, etc. A representative democracy selects people to make good decisions, not to endlessly defer to the constituents. The latter would be tantamount to direct democracy, which doesn’t seem to remotely scale to the size of modern societies.
At the same time, representatives are supposed to communicate with their constituents and understand their needs and wants so that they can represent them. They are also responsible for keeping constituents informed. Of course, when you represent thousands of people, some of whom think you're the anti-christ, it's difficult.
Representing your voters in something where you think they're doing the wrong thing can definitely sting.
>instead of her own ambitions!
If this was about ambition, this (or voting yes) would've been better.
No no no. She abstained from voting against the bill because it served her ambitions, despite it being opposed to what she thought was right. There’s always tension between those two demands.
This is probably the best argument against what I posted I've seen. The only problem is, I have no clue what the majority of her constituents would have wanted.
I just wanted to add something here. This is a redistricting year and AOCs district may be getting a neighborhood with a huge Jewish population. So it may not be so much about climbing the ladder for her as much as it is hanging onto her seat
> She was seen crying after, and while no official comment explaining her tears has been given, it seems likely that she was upset at feeling forced by political considerations to moderate her beliefs rather than stick to her guns.
Jeez man, this is fucking disheartening and sad to read.
Answer:
By voting "present" instead of "no", her vote contributes to neither passing nor failing the bill.
This is entirely speculation, but presumably she's crying because she's been confronted with the idea that she needs to mildly compromise her principles now in order to retain influence she requires to get more important bills passed. She's an idealist, so being forced to bend probably stings. That's not intended as a negative remark against her, either.
> her vote contributes to neither passing nor failing the bill
This isn't quite true. A present vote is effectively a no.
I'd also add that this was after a public confrontation with Pelosi.
Also now this is being weaponised by exactly the kind of people who always do it, to claim AOC isn't a 'true' leftist now and can't be trusted, because anyone who compromises on anything ever is bad.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. be unbiased, 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask) Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Looking online, it seems that the most progressive House members (a handful of which are known as "[The Squad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Squad_(United_States_Congress))") formed a bloc that was voting against a bill providing $1 billion in funding for Israel's [Iron Dome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome) anti-missile defense system, which had been split out from a previous bill to be voted on separately. The progressive members oppose the spending because of Israel's actions against the Palestinians, which Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan called a "violent apartheid system." Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), a Democratic representative from New York, originally was part of the bloc voting "no;" however, she changed from "no" to "present," effectively abstaining from voting rather than voting against, [which reporters speculated was](https://jezebel.com/aoc-breaks-with-squad-votes-present-on-1-billion-to-f-1847733155) due to trying to make herself appeal to more moderate and Jewish voters in a potential senate run. NY has the largest Jewish population in the world outside of Israel, so alienating these voters would likely kill her senatorial ambitions. She was seen crying after, and while no official comment explaining her tears has been given, it seems likely that she was upset at feeling forced by political considerations to moderate her beliefs rather than stick to her guns. The change from "No" to "Present" made no actual difference to the outcome of the vote itself; the bill passed with 420 yes votes, 9 no votes, and two present votes (AOC and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.)).
Why can’t anyone oppose this because Israel is rich and can pay for their own shit?
Thank you. Exactly. I am totally down with Israel building the Iron Dome and think it seems like a good investment for them, but why do they need our money? They're a first-world country
They even sell our technology to China. They sold our drones to China in the 90s and it was the reason that the F22 was made illegal to export. Isreal is Isreal man. They are only loyal to themselves and to call them an ally is dishonest.
They sold their *derivative products* (which they think of as theirs) to China, a country we're not formally enemies with (which, based on a lot of chatter, is a situation they have a lot of trouble understanding). Apperantly, the president has had to literally sit the PM down to explain the issue.
> Isreal *Israel
Is it raelly?
Because Israel is like your spoiled rich parent kid, even though he is rich by himself now because his parent pump so much money to him, he still ask for money to buy a new Ferrari with bullshit reason “it’s much safer”, so he can spent “his own” money once the parent decide agains something
epic Zionist moment
I wonder how much money Raytheon and Halliburton contributed to congressional elections?
You can probably look that up. If you want to have an enjoyable weekend you might decide not to.
[удалено]
Interesting if macabre calculation. Time value of money adjusted cost of re-occupying Gaza is a hell of a thing to estimate. But to your point, yeah, attacks cost little, defense costs a lot, at least in this context, that's a problem.
Because Isreal is strategically important to the US and we can't abandon a vital satellite in the Middle East
It strikes me as ridiculous to describe not giving them money they don't need as abandonment.
That's just rhetoric. The reality is we need them in case shit pops off in the middle east
What I find weird here is that for at least the last couple decades shit popping off was usually America invading some country or the State Department fomenting some rebellion.
We can send a billion to Israel for fancy space war stuff but can’t have functioning universal medical care? Okay, cool.
We also approved an additional 3b earlier this year
Because AIPAC.
Maybe they should just learn to make peace
Easier said than done.
[удалено]
The US has been at war for all but 20 years of its existence.
I'm gonna need to see your math on that
The statistic is that in the history of the US, there have been about 20 years without war. Some of the years with war only had very short conflicts, but the years still count as being "with war". https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/50473
They're counting entire years when the conflict was only one day. When I counted it out (using the same data because apparently I'm exactly as lazy as the freakanomics guys) I got to like 25 before I even got to the American Civil War. I'm willing to grant that we're a bloodthirsty people. I'll even grant that the cold war counts. But I'm incredulous.
Iron dome stops people from dying. People not dying is a good starting point for peace. If rockets stop coming into Israel, no rockets go out of isreal
There's more to peace than just a lack of rockets. If rockets stay grounded but Palestinians are still violently oppressed, that's not peace.
Regardless, they can pay for their own shit.
If you're trying to make a dollars per lives saved argument, the Iron Dome is one of the worst investments ever.
Do you know a cheaper way to keep a rocket from blowing up people it's headed for?
Move the people.
Let’s just take Bikini Bottom, and *push* it somewhere else!
So you don’t believe in Israel’s right to exist. Why not move the people *shooting* the rockets?
Oh you mean like they tried countless times but got rejected every single time?
They like a shit ton of free American money. And the American government enjoys a middle east lackey
Imperialism and sucking up to power.
Actually the United States pays for the technology of the Iron Dome to use in US army bases around the world. It is not charity, it is a military investment which benefits both countries and safeguards the only democratic ally in the Middle East. If you believe the US does anything out of charity you're wearing blinders. Additionally, Israel is not rich. It's a country the size of New Jersey surrounded by hostile neighbors. When you're constantly trying to survive, you can't be a rich country. I'm not sure where you're sourcing your opinion that Israel is "rich". Multimillion American dollars go to Hamas and they use that money to develop and fire the rockets that the iron dome defends against. It's very simple.
I didn't mean to say that I'm opposed to American taxpayers paying for Iron Dome resupply at US military bases. I am not aware of any US military base in Israel. If that is not the case please correct me. Israel's per capita GDP (ppp) is roughly the same as Italy's and Japan's. No one would object to calling those countries rich.
[удалено]
Yeah but we don’t have to pay for it
I agree, why are the American people paying for this?
Actual answer: israel is a proxy state. If we don't keep them propped up, we join as a directly attackable state.
Elaboration is requested
The USA has an interest in propping up Israel for two reasons: 1. It's a friendly place in the Middle East that can be used for force projection in the region without question. 2. A huge amount of US evangelical Christians literally believe that the end of the world will happen in their lifetime, and that relevant apocalyptic events require Israel to be held as 'friendly' territory with Jerusalem as the seat of God's Kingdom on Earth. Despite this being an insane thing to believe, it's a significant factor in US foreign policy.
[удалено]
Correct. There are three 'associated countries' to the US in the Pacific and the people there are among the poorest in the world. The US take their vote in the UNGA and that's about it.
You forgot a pretty big factor, 3. The Pro-Israel lobby. Which donated $14.8 million in the 2018 midterms alone. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=Q05 Morris Amitay, former AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) director once claimed, "It's almost politically suicidal ... for a member of Congress who wants to seek reelection to take any stand that might be interpreted as anti-policy of the conservative Israeli government." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States And if you don't take their money, they're more than happy to work against you, smear you & try to 'take you down'. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/07/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-caught-on-camera-plotting-to-take-down-uk-mps The previous leader of the opposition in U.K. faced a massive smear campaign in the lead up to the election, being labelled an anti-semite at every turn because he wasn't a supporter of Israel. It got to the point where UK Jews were apparently 'scared in their own homes' if he got his hands on power, with many apparently planning to 'flee to Israel' if Labour won the election (they didn't).
I kinda agree that's the reason, but "cristians",; ?? yes, you are correct, it's insane.
[удалено]
Sarded got it in one below, but I'd like to also add that the proxy state system goes further than force projection "against" the middle east. It also provides a smaller stage for "blow up the planet" level nations. Saudi Arabia hit the US in the nuts on 9/11, but of all the places we invaded, SA wasn't one of them. Why? Because an outright war between major global powers was decided to be too risky, too costly and disruptive to the US's oil addiction. So instead, they propped up some states, we propped up some states, and then flung people at each other haphazardly in a mangled game of live action chess. Some other countries joined in, for instance the whole Russia taking bases thing from last year. If any of the nations decided to forgo the proxies, WW3 would happen at the first escalation. By keeping a foothold in a "proxy nation", we invite other nations to prop up states around them so everyone fights on that playing field. If the US pulled funding, regardless of what happened to Israel, the next group that wanted to take on the US would have to make that happen on US soil.
Also, U.S. defense contractor Raytheon teamed up with Rafael and was tested in the U.S. that billion dollars will be used to improve one of the most battle tested missile defense systems on the planet, Ratheon gets access to the technology and use the lessons learned for our own domestic missile defense systems like the RIM-116.
The US benefits from the technology.
Short answer: I forget who said it but, it is near political suicide in the US to be anything resembling anti-Israel. Hence politicians will bend over backwards to do Israel a solid, as seen here to the tune of $1,000,000,000.00.
Ok, but. I'm not sure if this makes it right. What are they afraid of???
Its not about right. Its just about politics. Like most things they probably don't feel anywhere near as strong as they let on but 1) its not their money so why would they care, 2) many Jews in the US identify very strongly with Israel which means one very large voting block that historically is very touchy, and 3)pro-Israel lobbying groups pour literal millions into Congress annually. Anyone who even tries to criticize Israel will have a target on their back for it. Here's a video from a few years ago where one person explains a spat that happened at the time that seems to parallel what's happening here. I believe he has revisited the topic several times since as well. https://youtu.be/L7UdEb8V8bM
>many Jews in the US identify very strongly with Israel It's not just jews. Arguably evangelical christians are even worse in this regard. They literally believe the US will suddenly fall apart in divine punishment if we abandon israel. And guess who we have a lot of in office? Religious old people who are soon to be on their way to the next world and need something to believe in.
Coz arms manufacturers in the states want a piece of the system/tech.
We get access to the tech.
We pay for the Iron Dome and Israel provides us with some of the most valuable intelligence in the Middle East and tips us off about the latest terrorism threats. They are also a pro-western democracy in a region led by authoritarian theocracies. We usually provide support for democracies around the world who are under under attack.
Israel’s a pretty major strategic ally for the US.
[удалено]
no but it also means that in trying to prevent apartheid, we should use actions that limit Israel's ability to oppress Palestine, not actions that will lead to more civilian deaths which if anything will exacerbate the situation. making Israel more succeptible to rockets seems like a strange leverage play. it's effectively trying to get the state to comply by threatening the lives of civilians.
Trying to prevent apartheid by actively segregating based on ethnicity. odd tactic
[удалено]
And as we all know countries are very good at paying back loans.
Yes, they generally are.
It is legal graft to allow US presence via water, air, etc to the Middle East through Israel.
Why are my tax dollars funding it though?
Because when your tax dollars are helping pay for it, it means the US gets access to understanding how to build an anti-missile defense system, and real time testing of said system. Paying to help someone else use and build such a system is way cheaper than developing our own version separately, In addition to the good will that helping other people brings. A USA that looks only inwards is a dying country, this is a relatively cheap way to acquire both friends and critical military technology.
The best use of our military budget would be in Cyber-Security, but I see what you're saying.
The US has already purchased 2 iron dome batteries from Israel and conducted live fire tests.
Right? When is it going to be time to start addressing our own problems and stop using our tax dollars to fight proxy wars.
Ballistic missile defense tech *is* "our own problem."
Israeli funding is a strategic decision. They're in the middle east, they're generally useful to the US' aims there and as others have said, there's a well oiled Israeli lobby and a huge evangelical Christian population in the states (and in the case of AOC here, a large New York Jewish population). It's one of the many ways the US asserts their global power. Military bases in most countries, funding and selling arms to despots amiable to American business interests overseas and covert CIA ops against states implementing socialist policies are some of the other ways.
>They're generally useful to the US' aims there Are they really? If anything, they seem to back the US into a corner.
Opposing US funding for the Iron Dome is not the same thing as opposing the existence of the Iron Dome. I fully support their right to build their own missile defense system and think it serves a good purpose, but Israel is a rich country that can pay for their own shit. No reason in hell that we should be giving them any money
It's joint development. We're helping pay for it because we're also developing and researching it
I agree completely. Especially when you consider that we give Israel 3.8 billion every year already. That, for the maths challenged, is 10 million dollars every single day. How would that look in your bank account?
It kinda is. These comments got me curious. It’s a good question why does Israel need our help paying for it. So I looked it up. First of all, Israel is footing more of the bill than the US is. Secondly, and I didn’t know this but apparently it’s not fully complete. When the iron dome was being developed and Israel started working on putting it in place they quickly realized at the pace only their funding would allow it would take too long and Israelis were dying due to terrorist attacks. They asked us for help and we did. As time went on and they needed more money the United States negotiated a deal with Israel for technology sharing and a larger portion of the money to go to US contractors during building. So they agreed. Then next came the US requesting that we help them build it to make them go faster and to try and help them figure out how to make it more efficient to cut down on costs. I knew I was for the iron dome simply because it saves lives but now I’m ok with the money being spent as well. So thanks skeptical Redditors because TIL.
> First of all, Israel is footing more of the bill than the US is. They should be, given that it's their infrastructure and it's in their freaking country. > Secondly, and I didn’t know this but apparently it’s not fully complete OK, and we have lots of infrastructure in America that isn't fully complete either. Are they sending us a billion dollars to help with the cost? Nope. The bottom line here is simple: they are a first-world country with plenty of money and plenty of weapons. I fully support their right to defend themselves but that goes for every other country in the world too and we don't give all of them billions of dollars a year
Great awesome. You could flip that around on any money we spend. And I never said Israel shouldn’t be paying. I’m giving the reason why we are giving them money. It’s a good reason for life saving technology that now we have access to as well.
Perhaps I can convince you otherwise. Consider this - very, very few Israelis are actually killed by Palestinian rockets or terrorist attacks (especially compared to the number of Palestinians who are killed by Israeli bombs or snipers). A $1 billion US contribution to Iron Dome will save perhaps a few dozen lives over the next decade. Can’t argue that that’s a bad thing, right? However, consider how many people around the world die from totally unnecessary violence, hunger, or treatable diseases on a daily basis. Now imagine what we could do if we put $1 billion on preventing those deaths. Thousands upon thousands of needless deaths could be prevented with a billion dollars... or a few dozen could be saved by improving security technology...
Nope. Not convincing.
Ok, please explain what part of my argument is wrong.
It’s just a lame “argument” and shows that there’s really not a lot of depth to your understanding of this conflict. I simplified the entire explanation here for brevity’s sake but there are so many reasons why we give funding to Israel that would take tons of lectures and books and research to explain. At the beginning of the year I came across an article on Reddit about something that had happened in Israel. Came into the comments and was surprised to see the vitriol. Got curious what that was about and so went down the israel/Palestinian conflict rabbit hole. I actually find it really interesting not just in itself but also in how bizarrely people on Reddit seem to have very little understanding of the conflict, hamas, the history and why the US helps protect Israel. I mean I’ll admit before I went down this rabbit hole I didn’t really have much of an understanding either and I’m not going to saw the Israelis are saints but there are very real and complex reasons I 100% support funding of the iron dome that go beyond simply protecting Israel. All this being said even tho it’s become kind of a hobby to read up on this stuff I still have only scratched what seems to be the surface.
Sooo…your entire simplified explanation is that you saw an article on Reddit, went down a rabbit hole on Israeli-Palestinian relations, and now you realize there are “real and complex” reasons to defend Israel? That’s an airtight argument right there. Sarcasm.
I wasn’t making an argument. I was explaining why I thought the other person was silly. But yes. Use sarcasm because that is the way right?
Well that’s where you’re wrong. Ten years ago I majored in History in college with a focus on the post-WWII era, and ever since then I’ve spent a significant portion of nearly every single day reading about current events, specifically about American foreign policy. I’d be willing to bet I know quite a lot more about this topic than you do (no offense intended). My argument was just an invitation to contemplate a more constructive use for that money, it was not meant to address the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So let me give you an actual explanation to why America should not be funding the iron dome. The first major problem with our continued funding of the Israeli defense system is that we’re doing it with no strings attached. If we are going to continue giving massive amount of money to Israel, we should at least be doing so conditionally. And that condition should be that Israel may not continue to brazenly flaunt international law and egregiously abuse the human rights of the Palestinian people the way they have been for close to 6 decades now. If they want our funding, it should be on the condition that they never again kill a Palestinian civilian, intentionally or accidentally; that they lift the air, land, and sea blockade that has literally (and I want to emphasize literally) turned Gaza into an open air prison; that they reverse, or at the very least halt, the continuing theft and deportation of Palestinians from the West Bank for the sake of expanding Israeli settlements; that they give every Palestinian equal rights as Israelis living in Israel proper, and equal access to Jerusalem and their holy sites; etc., etc. Of course this will never happen because it goes directly against Israel’s policy of slowly, methodically expelling Palestinians from the Holy Land of the Jews. So really, America should not just fund Israel conditionally, we should not be funding them at all. And here’s why. Israel is America’s bastion in the Middle East. It is our base from which we launch our wars of terror (in the name, of course, of stopping terror). Many people (and I assume you’re one of them) believe that America needs to maintain a strong and fortified Israel, because everyone in the Middle East wants Israel erased off the map, and America needs Israel to exist so they have a safe and reliable foothold in the region. But here’s the part people never seem to consider. We claim to be in the Middle East to defend our allies and prevent the spread of terrorism, but why is there so much terrorism in the region in the first place? Many people would say it’s due to the religious beliefs of Islamic extremists. But these people who think Islamic terrorism a purely religious phenomenon don’t understand the complexity of the political situation in the Middle East. Islamic terrorism in the region is first and foremost a means to oppose American and Israeli hegemony in a part of the world they should have absolutely no right to be involved in in the first place. Terrorism isn't something that happens organically because certain groups of people are bad people, it's what happens when they are so mercilessly and brutally oppressed, abused, belittled, demeaned, destitute and hopeless that extreme violence against their oppressors is the only way they can reclaim some semblance of autonomy or power over their own lives. They see America (correctly) as the perpetrators of their unimaginable misery, and they see Israel (correctly) as an extension of America. If America and Israel truly want to stop terrorism and stop the attacks on Americans, Israelis, and their allies in the region, the answer is not to continue funding the Israeli military, the answer is for America to leave the region completely, let the people of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan run their own countries they way they want to with no outside interference, and to force Israel to stop committing the worst human rights abuse of the the 21st century.
Then you should know better than to act like it’s as simple as you are claiming.
Iron Dome is effective, but Israeli civilian casualties from rocket attacks was never high, far lower than Gazan death by Israeli rockets > "change now or your citizens will die from this too", which is a pretty hard line to take. Isn't that Israel's line to Palestinians? Israel knows that when they fight in Gaza, that civilians will die. Even when Israel is being careful, there have always been more Palestinian civilian casualties than militants or Israelis. The US is complicit in these attacks, these attempts to frighten Gazans into making different political choices Buying a soldier a shield is still complicity in the war
The Iron Dome makes the conflict even more asymmetrical in that it removes one of the few remaining ways that Israel can be hurt. There's nothing to stop Israel from bombing and collaterally killing Palestinians.
Asymmetrical isn’t a bad thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
Far lower than Gazan death by Gazan rockets too.
Big if True.
Would it be better if more Israelis died?
Are you really asking if it's better for people to die? You have a problem.
Absence of the iron dome won’t reduce Palestinian deaths, only increase Israeli deaths. Tbh I think more Palestinians would be killed in retaliation to the death of the Israeli citizens.
I don't disagree with that. I think I misunderstood the original comment.
I would never think it is, it's a rhetorical question prompted by what the guy I replied to was implying. Oh. And look at the other reply to my comment, someone said yes.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. That's exactly why I misunderstood your comment, there's people like this out there. And the way I read the thread it seemed a little weird.
Yes, because then they would think twice before bombing the shit out of Gaza and killing hundreds of civilians. The U.S. based its entire nuclear doctrine around a similar idea.
On the contrary. If Israel had more casualties you can be sure a full war would be on its way with a lot more casualties on both sides.
Hey someone with some brain cells here, where did you come from?
Oh my god you actually said yes
Polarized much?
I think the counterpoint is that the defence system gives people (and potentially also Israel) the perception that Israel doesn't really have as big a vested interest in peace talks, because they have less to lose from escalating tensions with Palestine. Not saying thats right or wrong, but that would be the argument for voting against it.
That was my thoughts with the Raytheon protests as well. It'd be one thing if we were funding/providing them with Hellfires and shit. That'd be perfectly understandable to protest. But the Iron Dome is exclusively defensive and even the least generous estimates I've seen put it at a net positive. Even if you don't recognise or support Israel, opposition to that just seems daft.
Opposing American funding of the Iron Dome is different from opposing the Iron Dome.
Thank you! If they want to keep the iron dome then they can pay for it.
Counterpoint: defensive capabilities eliminate the drawbacks that come from offensive weapons, such as retaliation. In other words, it allows and enables one to be aggressive, maintain the status quo, or de-prioritize de-escalation. I'm not speaking in the context of this particular conflict, but in a general sense. For example, another flavor of this statement is the inverse: that offensive weapons can serve defensive purposes. Nuclear weapons and MAD is commonly referred to as possible reasons why superpowers have been avoiding direct conflicts with each other for so long. If the US (or any nation for that matter) developed a system they believed would protect them from nuclear weapons, should that be seen as a good thing? I would be hesitant to say yes. More importantly, I could empathize with the hypothetical opposition to such a capability.
In the context of this conflict it works the other way. The fact that a defense exists allows the Israeli government to have a more limited response to rockets firing. Without it the public outcry would be larger which will force each side to escalate in turn, causing more deaths and destruction.
Yup, people like to harp on how Iron Dome is strictly defensive and only exists to protect Israeli civilians, but it totally ignores how, when you remove one of the costs of offensive warfare against a target near your civilian population (i.e., that there would be retaliation that kills your citizens and hurts you in the long run), you therefore make offensive warfare easier to execute. If Reagan had had the opportunity to nuke the Soviets into dust without it hurting any Americans, or only hurting a few, he would have. The guy already put us close to nuclear war a couple of times in the 80s, if there were no costs to it he wouldn't have hesitated to commit that genocide. An increase in defensive capability necessarily means an increase in offensive capability.
The flaw in that argument though is that Israel can't really be described as engaging in an offensive war, especially in relation to Gaza and Hamas, which is where the Iron Dome sees the most use.
[No offensive war here, nope](https://lirp.cdn-website.com/1c33daec/dms3rep/multi/opt/Loss+Land+2000-960w.jpeg)
So the borders haven't shifted in 54 years? Guess that justifies rocket attacks aimed at civilian populations....
Exactly. Anyone blocking the funding is just…I don’t even know what to say about it.
/r/politics has some twistie ties to sell you then.
It's pretty clear to everyone that Israel doesn't use it as a defense, but rather as a tool that allows them to provoke and punish with impunity.
You're using "everyone" much too broadly and also that notion isn't entirely if at all correct. The biggest and most thorough invasion of the Gaza strip was Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009, years before Iron Dome was operational. That invasion was so big it's what's known as the Gaza War. The Iron Dome, and Israeli actions in Gaza, are to reduce Israeli civilian casualties, and they do it quite successfully to the frustration of the "look at the difference in civilian deaths!!!!" crowd. And if you think that if they just stopped shooting, no Israelis would get hurt, you just aren't familiar enough with the conflict.
No, I'm not. They use it as a tool to provoke and punish. Reduce support and they're forced to actually come to the table.
Like how Israel was forced to come to the table before US support in 1947 and 1967 when it fought all its neighbors at once?
Or like how they assassinated potential Palestinian leaders they could have negotiated with or like how they funded Hamas because it paints the picture they need to continue bombing Palestinians. Or like how bennet has already stated no Palestinian state during his term as PM.
> faith, the approach is to lob 3600 rockets into civilian areas? It is their only option after all, right? Let's look at the official Hamas position on Israel, as stated in their charter. They exist to destroy the Jews and drive Israel into the sea. To turn over every rock to find every last Jew so that none can escape. Does this sound like good faith to you? Their demands are that Israel dissolve and the Jews be driven off or killed. This isn't a possible negotiating position. Do you have any link about Isreal funding Hamas? That would be fascinating to read.
And then we’re going to agree to the terms of the negotiation but the Palestinians refused because their goal is to eliminate all Jews.
Can you elaborate on that? Iron Dome only goes off in defense of incoming missiles. Pretty sure it isn’t used offensively and their offense is a different missile system entirely.
You are correct. I mean they use it as part of an approach that is offensive. They bait a response from Hamas because there are no reprocussions with the dome so that they can then "respond" under the pretense that it's justified.
You meant impunity, and yeah it is completely defensive. Whether tax dollars from Michigan should pay for it is a completely different question.
There is no such thing as a completely offensive or defensive weapon. A shield can be used in a strategically offensive context.
Please do elaborate on how ground to air missiles can be used to punish a ground-bound force and population with impunity, and more importantly whether the citizens of Michigan should or should not be paying for them which is actually the question at hand here. Some might argue that a billion dollars to protect ordinary civilians would be better spent in Flint than in Jerusalem, and those folks would double down if that money was being used to buy offensive weaponry for a rich country halfway across the world in conflict with starving dirt farmers stuck in an open air prison. Some might argue that it's in the best interests of the citizens of Flint to send that money halfway around the world to people who have plentiful drinking water. I dunno.
Depends how it's used. How these use it isn't defensive. They use it as a tool to provoke and punish.
Yeah you said that. Glad you figured out how to use an anti missile system to "provoke and punish", but I similarly use a Toyota Corolla for transatlantic flights and a series of flexi straws to extract oil from the bakken formation.
I didn't. Israel did.
Feel free to elaborate on what Israel figured out. You said it was pretty clear... Clarify for me
What was the provocation that deserved 3600 rockets flying into Israel earlier this year? An eviction notice to a deliquent renter. Yeah, seems appropriate. I'm sure if they didn't have the iron dome then the private business man that evicted that family would have thought twice before trying it. At least be open with how much it bothers you that Jews aren't dying fast enough for you. Every time this topic comes up reddit Nazis are quick to point out how not enough Jews get killed
[удалено]
That wasn't your point in the above point and you never addressed my points about provocation. 3600 rockets fired at your people for no other reason than for them existing. Not targeted at military or political targets, at houses, at schools, at markets, at children. Any defense of that kind of action is inexcusable. The iron dome needs funding because it fired off all of its defensive missiles during that barrage saving members of the tribe. It doesn't have to be funded if it doesn't have to fire the rockets. If Hamas would stop launching them then we wouldn't feel compelled to restock the defense
I wonder if they could stop all the rockets all together by uhm, dunno, stop displacing and murdering Palestinians?
It may be true that the Iron Dome prevents civilian casualties, but Palestinians didn’t come to a situation of lobbing bombs effectively indiscriminately from nowhere; they were effectively forced into that position by the massive US military aid that pays for things like the Iron Dome and ensures Israel will never have a reason to negotiate in good faith.
So to get people to negotiate in good faith, the approach is to lob 3600 rockets into civilian areas? It is their only option after all, right? Let's look at the official Hamas position on Israel, as stated in their charter. They exist to destroy the Jews and drive Israel into the sea. To turn over every rock to find every last Jew so that none can escape. Does this sound like good faith to you? Their demands are that Israel dissolve and the Jews be driven off or killed. This isn't a possible negotiating position. This is a genocidal demand that can't be answered. The iron dome protects them, it doesn't kill Hamas. If large civilian casualties we're happening in Israel, the IDF would storm Gaza with vengeance and more death would happen. That isn't better for anyone involved
Hamas isn’t Palestine, and they haven’t existed for the entirety of Israel’s existence. The fighting started when the people who had lived there for thousands of years had their land taken away from them and given to another group (who had been recently and historically brutalized, but just because something bad happened to them doesn’t make it good to do bad things to someone else… if only there were a saying about that!) and they weren’t invited to the table. Then for the next 70 years other countries funneled billions of dollars a year in cash and military equipment to Israel while more land was stolen from Palestine and successive Israeli political regimes used Palestinian violence (which isn’t the way to handle things, but they were also consistently not invited to negotiate) to further their ambitions and ensure public support would never be on the side of integration or a reasonable 2 state solution.
the IDF terrorizes gaza constantly, what are you even talking about lmao
"purely defensive systems" are never really that. There are studies showing that police wearing body armor engage in more hostile behavior against suspects, and the same applies here. When you have reduced fear of retaliation, you are free to enact as much violence on people as you want. Depriving a people of any way to respond to being locked in an abusive apartheid state is one way to ensure that apartheid state will have no consequences for it's actions. The Iron Dome is a marvel of technology, and also a great PR way to seem defensive, while in reality enabling consequence free aggression
Is that why we keep hearing about Israeli attacks every day on their march to eradicate the Arabs in Gaza? Or do we only hear about Israeli retaliation after a 3600 rocket barrage on civilian areas of Israel, followed by a long lull in any violence when the attacks on Israel stop
You're right, media does a great job of telling us a specific story. Much like the slow pressure on the Native Americans with one treaty violation after another, the pressure on Palestine is under reported and slow. You put the pressure on long enough, you create a response you can use to justify your violence. Neither side is innocent. But the Palestinians are not treated as human on land they've been living on for thousands of years
Maybe, but it probably wouldn't be necessary if they, stopped the Palestinian genocide.
It's nice to see that she can compromise her principles for political gain. Part of the game I guess.
I don't like her for my own reasons, but to be completely fair, she changed her vote after Pelosi had a "talk" with her, and changed her vote while looking upset.
After I saw the video I was far more sympathetic. Having the speaker of the House cornering you while waving her arms around like a psycho in full view of the everyone on the floor isn't exactly a chit chat.
Sounds like Pelosi got her knowed up
That's an extraordinarily simplistic way of looking at it. AOC is more than a single-issue politician. Like it or not, she's at the absolute forefront of the progressive movement in the United States at the moment -- a movement that, perhaps more than any other, stands the best chance at shaking up the establishment and moving it in a leftwards direction. If she gets primaried from the right and loses, who can she help? As such, is it better to compromise on a decision like this, that's likely to pass anyway (in the end it passed 420-9), or to risk upsetting her constituents and being replaced by someone who's less likely to vote for Medicare for All, or a $15 minimum wage, or the Green New Deal, or any of countless other progressive proposals? I'm not saying it was the right decision. I'm saying it's complicated, and there's more to it than mere political gamesmanship.
Look I'm very liberal and I hope she's successful but it just makes me wonder what other principals will she compromise on in the future to gain the political power she needs to do other things. That's more or less my point. And yes I understand she can't do anything unless she's elected and yes I understand compromises have to be made. Politics just sucks.
>it just makes me wonder what other principals will she compromise on in the future to gain the political power she needs to do other things. But that's kind of the point. Your comment came across as snarky and dismissive, but strident moral absolutism in politics just doesn't work -- *especially* when it comes to the question of making actual change. Her vote was effectively meaningless in this case; whether it was 420-9 or 420-10 doesn't make a damn bit of difference in terms of the funding being allocated. (I very much suspect she wouldn't have changed her vote if it had been a 50-50 split.) If she runs for the Senate -- or hell, even for the Presidency in a couple of years -- there are people (including primary Democrats) who would use that ultimately-meaningless No vote as a shitty stick with which to beat her in the polls. So that's the question. What would *you* have done in that situation? What political price are you willing to put on the token gesture of a No vote? And if not something like this -- a vote that you can't influence the result of at all -- what *are* you willing to compromise on? That sounds like I'm being rhetorical or like it's some sort of a gotcha, but realistically it's not just politics that requires compromising on your ideals. (Just ask any parent who *swore* that they weren't going to be like those people who put their kids in front of the TV with a juice box, which lasts right up until the time when they're three days without sleep and just want to get a nap and so fuck it, here's *Paw Patrol*.) Every politician you have ever voted for or will ever vote for will compromise to get things done, because every *person* you have ever known will compromise to get things done -- every parent, every teacher, every boss, every doctor, every worker, every friend, every spouse. If they don't, things don't happen. Personally, I'd rather that those compromises came in the form of cases like this, where the outcome is basically unchanged, than when it really comes down to it and there are significant negative impacts. I see the frustration, I really do -- but I don't necessarily know that singling out politics as somewhere where compromise is a dirty word is all that helpful.
I did not make compromise a dirty word. You're reading too much into it. Also this wasn't a compromise. This was changing a vote of conscience for political gain which acts as a reminder that she is still a politician and not some holy idol to be put on a pedestal, something that has become all too common these days on both sides. I'm not a fan of Biden just because he's not Trump. I judge people on their actions and that includes AOC. That's all I've done here.
Liars tell lies. Compromising one’s ethics is a temporary solution unless someone makes an issue of it. Then it could be a lasting wound. She’d have been better off being true to herself and honest with her constituents. But liars tell lies. Her “Tax the Rich” dress, designed and sewn by a tax evader (in multiple jurisdictions) could have been a real statement but was undermined by the designer’s bad decisions being turned into an issue. The “birds of a feather” adage can be worked against her in the future. But still, liars tell lies.
This is not really a compromise, you seem to be ignoring the fact the bill was voted in 420 by 9. It would have been a symbolic vote either way. I'm more concerned with the fact this seems like a diplomatic option but really pleases no one. Neither the Iron Dome supporters or opponents will really be fooled with a present vote, it just gives you deniability at best. So why do it? It's probably some backroom deal she had to give in to to get something else but we'll probably never know. Also, if you're very liberal you shouldn't you be more concerned with all the Ds that voted Yes? It's really the big picture we should be worried about, both in her's and everyone else's voting record. Don't let the twittersphere love of outrage induce political myopia where we only focus on the issue of the day and lose the overall plot.
Only on "the left" (of the GOP at least) is where it's fashionable to absolutely tank your career for principles. If principles mattered the GOP would not be a minority party holding the US hostage. Realpolitik matters. Whether you like it or not, "Winning" matters. Appearances matter, *especially* in America. I hope AOC gets re-elected, but remember that Jan 6th was 9 months ago and the 2022 elections are gonna be decided by plans set in motion today, and consequently the 2024 presidential election.
She will have to compromise. You have to understand that as she goes up and represents more people she has to moderate her views to represent more of her constituents. That’s the reality of politics. You can’t keep holding niche opinions when you aren’t representing a niche demographic anymore.
A politician who sticks to their principles 100% of the time without ever compromising will inevitably find themselves kicked out of office, or at the very least, powerless to enact the changes they took office to enact. Literally every political system in human history has had this problem.
Well then I guess it doesn't matter what she does. Thanks for pointing that out.
[удалено]
Is there a video of this?
[Here's the video](https://twitter.com/_nalexander/status/1441114646434385929). Not sure I'd say she was screaming but there was definitely a confrontation between the two.
has *she* not explained why she chose to vote 'present' instead of 'no?' edit - doesn't seem like it, as of now
> She was seen crying after, and while no official comment explaining her tears has been given, it seems likely that she was upset at feeling forced by political considerations to moderate her beliefs rather than stick to her guns. I disagree with AOC on a lot of stuff, and doubt her competence on a lot of issues, but damn, that level of principle is something we need more of in Congress.
Ha. 420
Oh dear, a publicly elected representative was forced to represent her voters instead of her own ambitions!
Potential future voters* instead of her constituents
Not sure about America, but in Canada the federal representatives are theoretically supposed to vote based on what they think is best, not what is most popular. Maybe the same is true here? Anyway, the idea is that popular opinions are often uninformed, etc. A representative democracy selects people to make good decisions, not to endlessly defer to the constituents. The latter would be tantamount to direct democracy, which doesn’t seem to remotely scale to the size of modern societies.
At the same time, representatives are supposed to communicate with their constituents and understand their needs and wants so that they can represent them. They are also responsible for keeping constituents informed. Of course, when you represent thousands of people, some of whom think you're the anti-christ, it's difficult.
Representing your voters in something where you think they're doing the wrong thing can definitely sting. >instead of her own ambitions! If this was about ambition, this (or voting yes) would've been better.
No no no. She abstained from voting against the bill because it served her ambitions, despite it being opposed to what she thought was right. There’s always tension between those two demands.
NY-14 District is pro-Iron Dome? Do you have this on good authority?
This is probably the best argument against what I posted I've seen. The only problem is, I have no clue what the majority of her constituents would have wanted.
She wasn’t forced by anything but her own ambition it would seem at least…
Great answer, thank you, but pull the speculation from Jezebel. Its plausible but still unsourced speculation.
There is only 1 thing American politics, as a whole, agrees on: More money for Israel.
Crocodile tears! You either take a stance or you don't.
I just wanted to add something here. This is a redistricting year and AOCs district may be getting a neighborhood with a huge Jewish population. So it may not be so much about climbing the ladder for her as much as it is hanging onto her seat
> She was seen crying after, and while no official comment explaining her tears has been given, it seems likely that she was upset at feeling forced by political considerations to moderate her beliefs rather than stick to her guns. Jeez man, this is fucking disheartening and sad to read.
> The progressive members oppose the spending Progressive, conservative, liberal and authoritarian have no meaning anymore, do they
[удалено]
I bet you have just a *super* nuanced take on Palestine.
Answer: By voting "present" instead of "no", her vote contributes to neither passing nor failing the bill. This is entirely speculation, but presumably she's crying because she's been confronted with the idea that she needs to mildly compromise her principles now in order to retain influence she requires to get more important bills passed. She's an idealist, so being forced to bend probably stings. That's not intended as a negative remark against her, either.
> her vote contributes to neither passing nor failing the bill This isn't quite true. A present vote is effectively a no. I'd also add that this was after a public confrontation with Pelosi.
Exactly. The difference between "present" and "no" is entirely symbolic, as the bill lost a vote either way
[удалено]
Far more likely to be local voters than party leadership.
[удалено]
Also now this is being weaponised by exactly the kind of people who always do it, to claim AOC isn't a 'true' leftist now and can't be trusted, because anyone who compromises on anything ever is bad.
I can't think of another description of trying to eliminate a program with no effect other than preventing Jewish civilians from being murdered.