Anonymous #1 8w

I know all the context I’ve seen that tweet, the fact is that the Israeli government could not commit its current genocide if not for the Iron Dome. There’s no excuse to vote for funding it, and voting against the defense budget as a whole isn’t an excuse. The defense budget was gaurunteed to pass no matter what, but trying to remove iron dome funding in the amendment stage might have actually been useful

1

Anonymous #2 8w

Its the principal man. Don’t get me wrong I’d still vote for her over most, I’m an American I’m used to voting for people I hate lol. I just wish we had someone who was willing to consistently stand on principal around Palestine

2

Anonymous OP 8w

There are two schools of thought here: - The Iron Dome allows them to strike, knowing that opponents’ attacks will likely be foiled - The Iron Dome reduces civilian casualties, which Israel uses to drum up public support for the war I think there’s more evidence for the second one. Especially considering some missiles from Iran got around the Iron Dome/David’s Sling/Iron Beam. As an analogy, former Indian officials and experts think that Pakistan’s “strike first” policy…

1

Anonymous #2 8w

…(in comparison to India’s “no first strike”) caused India to be more conservative in their retaliations against Pakistan. The part where it gets complicated for AOC though is that she could have justified a “no” vote with “well we’re already giving $3.8B to them, they can use some of that for the Iron Dome”. The other issue was that a vote aligning with MTG (a known antisemite) over something that wouldn’t change much could be ammo in a future election

0

Anonymous #2 8w

The invasion of Lebanon was justified by the deaths of those kids as well, so I think that’s more evidence for the second reason. IIRC the Iron Dome wouldn’t have done anything for those rockets from Hezbollah. They were too low

0