AOC Is Correct: Defund The Iron Dome

The New York Congresswoman is on the right side of the law. Her detractors must explain why America should break it.

AOC speaking at a foreign-policy event in Germany.

Last week, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez publicly stated that she opposes all military funding to Israel, including for the Iron Dome. A so-called “defensive weapon,” the Iron Dome is a counter-missile system that Israel uses to destroy incoming rockets, typically from Iran, Hezbollah, and Palestinian resistance groups located in the illegally-occupied West Bank and Gaza. AOC has a complicated history with the Iron Dome. She’s supported it rhetorically in the past, but has consistently voted against sending military aid to Israel and called for an arms embargo during the Gaza Genocide. As the Palestine issue is crucial to the socialist left, the New York Congresswoman formally announced her opposition to all military funding at a New York City DSA forum. (I’ll write about the intra-left dynamics surrounding AOC’s Iron Dome history shortly, so subscribe if you want to read it.)

As soon as AOC’s declaration hit the airwaves, all hell broke loose. Stories about the congresswoman’s statement spread like wildfire and were reported by every major news outlet. There were positive developments, such as Representative Ro Khanna, another likely 2028 progressive presidential contender, matching Ocasio-Cortez’s pledge and reversing his earlier position of funding the Iron Dome. Of course, as is expected in modern Democratic politics, the bad outweighed the good. Members of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s own party immediately accused her not just of antisemitism, but of wanting Jews to die. Here’s Representative Josh Gottheimer, showing us that nice Zionist charm we all know and love.

Putting aside his slanders, Gottheimer is making what I consider the strongest argument for funding the Iron Dome. It may be the strongest, but it’s still pathetically weak. As Occasio-Cortez said in a follow-up statement, American military assistance must be consistent with the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act, which bars funding to human rights violators.¹

“No security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” — Foreign Assistance Act, Section 502B

Josh Ghotheimer’s “question” is backward. The burden is not on Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to explain why we should follow American law and withhold military assistance from Israel. The burden is on Josh Gottheimer and his fellow Zionists to explain why we should break American law to arm Israel.

Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act, which bans assistance to any government that consistently violates human rights.

The subtext of Gottheimer’s whining is another common Zionist argument, which claims the Iron Dome is purely “defensive” and thus defunding it will lead to the death of Israeli civilians. As the liberal Zionist argument goes, even if we disagree with Israel’s government, we shouldn’t punish the Israeli people by subjecting them to rockets! This argument is so stupid, I can’t believe I have to refute it. But here we are.

If the Iron Dome is a purely defensive capability, then shouldn’t the United States buy one for China? Or Russia? Or, Iran, whose civilian population is currently being bombed? After all, the political establishment’s position on Iran is that the Iranian people are a victim of their undemocratic regime, and we must help liberate them to preserve their rights and lives. If this is the case, shouldn’t we buy Iran a “defensive” weapons system and let them install it in Tehran to save innocent Iranian lives? Or better yet, why not send an Iron Dome-type system to Russia? Putin’s Russia and Israel are both illegally occupying another nation. Just like Palestinians, Ukrainians have the right to fight back. If these “defensive” weapons only save lives and have no offensive capability, then shouldn’t the United States install them in Moscow to protect innocent Russians from Ukrainian missiles?

Of course, this is a ridiculous position that no American official would ever agree to. That’s because the distinction between “defensive” and “offensive” weapons is fake. I first saw this fake category of “offensive” and “defensive” weapons used to argue for arming Saudi Arabia during its genocidal war on Yemen. As is the case now, the argument was that these “defensive” missiles would knock out Houthi drone factories, therefore saving innocent Saudi lives. It’s almost shocking how similar the excuses for “defensive” weapons to Saudi Arabia five years ago are to the same arguments for “defensive” weapons to Israel today. One would have thought they’d changed it up by now.

“The Biden administration’s foreign military sale package to KSA included $650 million in air-to-air munitions. These systems are purely defensive and every time one of those Advanced Medium-Range-Air-to-Air-Missiles (AMRAMM) or Guidance Enhanced Missiles (GEM-Ts) is fired, it knocks down a drone that could take out a hospital or orphanage. And these defenses are not new; the Saudis need them because they depleted their munitions in the ongoing war with Iranian proxies in Yemen. The Saudis will absolutely defend their people, so if they do not buy defenses from us, they will buy them from countries that are eager for their business.” — Why the Saudi Arabia Weapons Deal Was a Strategic Necessity, December, 2021

All weapons, regardless of their function, increase offensive capability. When a mass shooter wears body armor on their rampage, the armor enables offensive violence. Sure, armor doesn’t shoot bullets; it only stops them. But protection from incoming-fire only keeps the gunman alive so he can continue his slaughter. If a mother gave her son body armor to “defend him” while he carried out a school shooting, would we excuse that as the mother trying to “defend” her son? Of course not. The same is true for Israel. By funding the Iron Dome and allowing it to be partially manufactured in America, the United States is bolstering Israel’s offensive capabilities, which are currently being directed at innocent civilians in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, the West Bank, Syria, Iraq, and probably another country by the time I finish typing this sentence. By stopping U.S. funding, Israel would be forced to direct more of its military resources to sourcing a 100% Israeli-made anti-missile system. That means the IDF would have less money, time, personnel, and productive capacity to spend on making missiles, bombs, bulldozers, and the other deadly instruments of colonization. Every shekel Israel spends on the Iron Dome is one less shekel they have to buy bullets shot at children like Hind Rajab. Defunding the Iron Dome won’t cost innocent lives. It will save them.

Congressional candidate Melat Kiros made this point about “offensive and defensive” weapons during my interview with her last month.

At this point, I feel the need to go further than Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and state a position that is unacceptable in the current realm of electoral politics. Though Israel and its supporters always portray Israel’s militancy as “defensive,” the truth is, Israel has no right to defend itself. Contrary to what American politicians say, Israel’s “self-defense” is typically offensive and a violation of international law. A perfect example of this is the West Bank apartheid wall, which Israel calls a “security barrier.”

The Apartheid Wall runs through internationally recognized Palestine.

In the Summer of 2000, after the failure of the Camp David Summit and Ariel Sharon’s provocative march on the Haram al-Sharif, Palestine rose against Israel with a wave of protests and resistance in the Second Intifada. To suppress the uprising, the Israeli government built a 440-mile concrete wall that segregated the West Bank, including areas the Oslo Accords declared to be Palestinian territory. In 2004, the International Court of Justice ruled the wall violated Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits “the use of force against any territorial integrity.” While the result was welcomed, how the ICJ ruled is what is most interesting.

During the hearing, Israel’s written argument defended the apartheid wall on the grounds that it was a mechanism of self-defense, specifically to stop the suicide bombings carried out by Palestinian militant groups. The ICJ took this into consideration, but ultimately ruled Israel had no right to self-defense on land it was illegally occupying. In other words, Israel is the attacker. And the attacker cannot claim to be defending themselves.

“In conclusion, the Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall. The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall and its associated regime are contrary to international law.” — International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Israel’s Construction of Wall, July 9th, 2004

This decision was not a case ruling, but an Advisory Opinion. An Advisory Opinion is essentially a fact-finding mission that the ICJ uses to inform the United Nations General Assembly. A few weeks later, the United Nations General Assembly voted 150-6 to endorse the ICJ opinion, officially stating Israel has no right to claim self-defense during its ongoing illegal occupation of Palestine.

A 2005 map from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs showing how Israel’s wall dissects Palestinian territory.

This is why I am fully unconvinced by arguments that the United States should provide the Iron Dome for the purpose of Israeli “defense.” Just as Israel has no right to build a “defensive barrier” on the land it illegally occupies, neither does it have a moral or legal right to invoke the principles of self-defense against Iran or Hezbollah. Just like in Palestine, when it comes to Iran and Lebanon, Israel is the beligerent party. There’s no denying that the United States and Israel began the latest war with Iran. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told us it was Israel’s idea. Currently, the Israeli Army is openly admitting to cleansing Shiite Muslims from Southern Lebanon, which it has invaded repeatedly over the last four decades. IDF commanders are even warning Christian and Druze communities to stop sheltering Shiite Muslims and hand them over to the Israeli Army. Gee, that sounds familiar. I wonder where I heard that before.

---

Thanks for reading JoeWrote! Please click the ❤️ to help this article rise in Substack’s algorithm. If you’re a first-time reader, make sure you subscribe so future articles are delivered to your inbox. If you’re a JoeWrote veteran, consider upgrading to a paying membership. For the cost of just one cup of coffee a month, you can unlock everything JoeWrote has to offer. Plus, your support ensures I can keep writing articles just like this. Thanks in advance!

In Solidarity — Joe

1. The Leahy Law is frequently cited as the legal justification to ban arms shipments to Israel. But Leahy is technically an amendment to the FAA. The FAA bans military assistance to governments that violate human rights, while the Leahy Law bars assistance to specific units and groups.