Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not against Israel, that's why She is not a real populist

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is often seen as the face of the U.S. progressive movement. Rising to fame after her upset 2018 primary victory against a powerful Democratic incumbent, she has consistently pushed the party leftward on climate change, healthcare, and economic inequality. Yet on the issue of Israel and Palestine, her record is riddled with contradictions.

While AOC has at times criticized Israel’s military actions and expressed sympathy for Palestinians, her decisions in Congress and her political endorsements reveal a different story. She has repeatedly aligned herself with the Democratic Party establishment or avoided meaningful confrontation with pro-Israel figures in her own party. This has disappointed many of her progressive supporters, some of whom view her as retreating from bold positions when they matter most.

The Iron Dome Episodes

One of the most revealing examples of AOC’s compromises came in September 2021, when the House voted on a $1 billion standalone funding bill for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. Progressives argued that unconditional U.S. military aid allows Israel to continue its occupation and assaults on Gaza with little consequence. At first, AOC appeared poised to vote against the funding, joining allies like Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar.

But in a last-minute reversal, she switched her vote to “Present.” Cameras caught her visibly emotional on the House floor, even crying after casting the vote. While she later justified her decision by blaming the rushed process and the toxic environment in Congress, the outcome was clear: she had chosen not to take a firm stand against additional military aid to Israel.

Fast forward to July 2025, when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced an amendment to slash $500 million in Iron Dome funding from the defense budget. This time, AOC voted against the amendment—effectively endorsing continued funding. Although she also opposed the overall defense bill, her position again shielded the U.S. commitment to bankroll Israel’s defense.

For many progressives, these two episodes underscore a pattern: when given the chance to materially oppose U.S. complicity in Israel’s actions, AOC finds a way to soften her stance.

Falling Out with the Democratic Socialists of America

AOC’s inconsistencies eventually cost her support from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the organization that had been central to her early credibility. In 2024, the DSA’s national leadership announced it would no longer endorse her. Their reasoning was blunt: AOC had failed to meet the group’s conditions for endorsement, which included supporting the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, opposing all U.S. military aid to Israel, and resisting redefinitions of antisemitism that conflate critique of Israel with hate speech.

The DSA decision symbolized growing unease within the left. If even AOC—once the insurgent outsider—could not stand firmly against the Democratic establishment’s pro-Israel orthodoxy, then who would? For many grassroots activists, her wavering represented not pragmatism but capitulation.

Endorsements That Protect Pro-Israel Democrats

Another way AOC has disappointed progressives is through her selective use of political endorsements. While she has backed primary challengers against establishment Democrats in some races, she has repeatedly avoided supporting pro-Palestinian candidates running against staunchly pro-Israel incumbents.

This silence is not neutral. By choosing not to lend her significant political platform to challengers who would move the Democratic Party leftward on Israel, she effectively shields pro-Israel Democrats from grassroots pressure. It also signals that AOC is willing to tolerate strong pro-Israel voices within her party, even when they clash with the principles she claims to represent.

For instance, during the 2022 primary cycle, progressives expected AOC to elevate challengers against New York incumbents with long pro-Israel track records. Instead, she refrained, preserving her alliances within the Democratic Party. The result was a de facto boost for establishment figures, even if she did not formally endorse them.

Voting for Symbolic Pro-Israel Measures

Beyond military aid and endorsements, AOC has also backed legislation that aligns with pro-Israel talking points. In 2024, she voted in favor of H.Res. 888, a resolution affirming Israel’s right to exist and labeling denial of that right as antisemitism. While the measure seemed symbolic, progressives warned it would be used to silence Palestinian voices and criminalize legitimate criticism of Israeli policy.

By supporting such resolutions, AOC lent legitimacy to the mainstream Democratic narrative that frames Palestinian liberation movements as suspect while granting Israel the moral high ground. For someone expected to challenge orthodoxy, this vote was a clear retreat.

Why It Matters

Critics argue that AOC’s behavior reveals a troubling pattern: she is willing to make bold statements about justice and liberation, but when the political stakes rise, she defaults to establishment positions. On domestic issues, this may result in incrementalism instead of radical reform. On foreign policy, however, the consequences are much more severe.

Every dollar of military aid to Israel translates into the capacity to bomb Gaza, expand illegal settlements, and enforce apartheid-like conditions in the West Bank. When AOC votes to sustain Iron Dome funding or refuses to challenge pro-Israel incumbents, she is not just making a symbolic gesture—she is reinforcing the material foundation of occupation.

Moreover, her contradictions sap energy from the progressive movement. Many activists who once viewed AOC as an uncompromising voice for justice now see her as yet another politician balancing principle with ambition. This erosion of trust matters, especially among young people and communities of color who overwhelmingly sympathize with Palestinians.

Conclusion: Progressives Must Look Beyond AOC

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez remains a charismatic and influential figure within U.S. politics. But her record on Israel and Palestine demonstrates the limits of relying on individual politicians to deliver transformative change. While she continues to inspire on climate and economic justice, her repeated retreats on foreign policy highlight the constraints of working within the Democratic Party.

The lesson for activists is clear: no single politician, however promising, can be the vessel for liberation. Movements must be built that are strong enough to hold leaders accountable, even those who claim the progressive mantle. Until then, AOC’s contradictions on Israel will remain a sobering reminder of how political ambition and establishment pressure can dilute even the most radical-seeming voices.