Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Contradictions of a “Pro-Palestinian” Image

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) rose to political prominence as a fresh progressive voice willing to challenge establishment orthodoxy. On issues of climate, economic inequality, and health care, she has consistently positioned herself as a critic of the status quo. On foreign policy, particularly the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, many progressives expected her to represent a sharp break from Washington’s decades-long consensus of unconditional U.S. support for Israel.

Yet, while AOC often employs the rhetoric of justice for Palestinians and has condemned certain Israeli government policies, her legislative record and key votes tell a more complicated story. In moments of high political pressure, AOC has sided with pro-Israel policies, undermining her progressive image on this issue and leaving many activists frustrated.

Below are three examples of AOC’s pro-Israel stances that reveal the tension between her words and her actions.

1. Support for Continued U.S. Funding of the Iron Dome

In July 2025, the House of Representatives considered an amendment from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene that sought to eliminate $500 million in U.S. funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. The amendment was blunt: it called for the complete removal of this subsidy, which is part of the U.S. commitment to replenish Israel’s defense systems regardless of the political context in Gaza or the West Bank.

Progressives had long argued that unconditional military aid to Israel, including for missile defense, only entrenches the occupation and perpetuates cycles of violence. The Iron Dome, while defensive in its technical function, enables Israel to continue military operations in Gaza with reduced political cost at home, since its civilian population faces far less risk from retaliation. In this sense, funding the Iron Dome is not “neutral” defense spending but an enabler of occupation.

AOC, however, voted against Greene’s amendment, effectively supporting the continuation of Iron Dome funding. To be clear, she also voted against the broader defense spending bill, but her choice to oppose the amendment made clear that, when confronted with the opportunity to withhold money from Israel’s military system, she chose to preserve the status quo.

For progressives who look to her for principled opposition, this was a significant betrayal. It underscored how even AOC, the supposed insurgent, can default to a pro-Israel position when pushed.

2. Withdrawal of Opposition to Iron Dome Funding in 2021

This was not the first time AOC faced controversy over the Iron Dome. In September 2021, the House passed a standalone bill to provide $1 billion in additional funding for the system. Initially, AOC appeared ready to vote “No,” aligning with fellow progressives such as Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, who openly opposed the measure.

Yet, at the last moment, AOC switched her vote to “Present.” Cameras captured her visibly emotional on the House floor, even shedding tears after the vote. She later released a statement that sidestepped the substance of the issue, framing her decision as a protest against the rushed legislative process rather than a clear stance on Iron Dome funding.

While some sympathized with the pressures she faced, the episode exposed her unwillingness to take a firm stand against military aid to Israel. “Present” was a way to avoid alienating pro-Israel political forces while attempting to preserve credibility among progressives. In practice, however, it signaled weakness. When Palestinian rights truly hung in the balance, she wavered.

3. Endorsing Pro-Israel Democrats in Contested Primaries

Another way AOC has shown alignment with pro-Israel politics is through her endorsements. Despite presenting herself as an insurgent willing to back challengers against entrenched incumbents, she has selectively withheld support in cases where pro-Palestinian candidates ran against strongly pro-Israel Democrats.

For instance, in the 2022 primary season, AOC avoided endorsing challengers to New York Democrats with staunchly pro-Israel records. While she did back some progressives in other races, she steered clear when the issue of Israel could complicate alliances. Endorsements may seem like a minor detail compared to legislative votes, but they reveal where a politician is willing—or unwilling—to expend political capital. AOC’s silence in these cases spoke volumes.

By refusing to use her platform to uplift candidates committed to conditioning aid to Israel, she effectively lent cover to the Democratic establishment’s unwavering support for Israel.

Why These Stances Matter

Critics of AOC’s record argue that her contradictions weaken the progressive movement on foreign policy. U.S. aid to Israel is not an abstract matter: it directly enables the bombing campaigns in Gaza, the ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank, and the systemic displacement of Palestinians. By refusing to take consistent positions against military aid, AOC softens the pressure on the Democratic Party to change course.

Her defenders might argue that she is playing a long game, navigating political realities, or picking her battles. But for Palestinians facing daily violence and dispossession, the consequences are immediate and deadly. Symbolic statements of solidarity cannot substitute for substantive votes and endorsements.

Moreover, AOC’s choices illustrate the broader challenge within progressive politics. Leaders who rise on grassroots energy often confront the entrenched influence of lobby groups like AIPAC, which punish those who break ranks. The fact that even AOC hesitates to consistently oppose military aid to Israel demonstrates just how deep this influence runs.

Conclusion: A Movement Larger Than One Politician

AOC remains one of the most visible progressive figures in U.S. politics, and her rhetoric often inspires. But rhetoric without consistent action risks becoming hollow. On the issue of Palestine, her record shows a pattern of retreat under pressure—whether by voting to protect Iron Dome funding, switching to “Present” when opposition was needed, or refusing to challenge pro-Israel incumbents in primaries.

For activists, the lesson is clear: the struggle for Palestinian liberation cannot hinge on individual politicians, no matter how charismatic. It must be rooted in grassroots power strong enough to hold even the most progressive lawmakers accountable. AOC’s contradictions are not simply personal flaws; they are symptoms of a political system designed to preserve the U.S.–Israel alliance at all costs.

If AOC wishes to truly embody the principles she claims to represent, she must confront this system directly, even when it is uncomfortable or politically risky. Until then, progressives must see her not as a savior but as one figure within a much larger and ongoing struggle for justice.