Setting the Record Straight on AOC & Gaza
As speculation grows as to whether New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez will enter the race for the presidency or the Senate in 2028, so does the importance of being clear on her record. One of a number of areas in which AOC has distinguished herself during her congressional career has been in opposing US support for Israel’s response to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, as that response grew to a campaign to render Palestinian life in Gaza impossible. And yet it appears that some think her to have been less than optimally anti-Gaza War.
Let’s look at the record.
OCTOBER 16, 2023 — CEASEFIRE RESOLUTION
The initial Hamas attack that killed over 1,200 Israelis — primarily civilian — was an obviously insupportable action that understandably elicited immense sympathy for Israel’s victims. And yet, by October 16 the intensity of Israel’s retribution — also carried out largely against a civilian population — was sufficiently severe and disproportionate as to cause twelve members of the House of Representatives to file a resolution calling for an immediate cease fire.
AOC was one of that dozen.
OCTOBER 25, 2023 — OPPOSITION TO CONTINUED ISRAELI MILITARY ACTION
Nine days later, with the Palestinian death toll now reaching 7,000 — mostly civilian and a significant portion children — only nine Democrats (and one Republican) voted against a House resolution calling for continued support for the Israeli onslaught.
AOC was one of the nine.
AUGUST 19, 2024 — DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION
During her DNC speech endorsing Kamala Harris’s presidential candidacy, AOC declared that the Vice President was “working tirelessly to secure a ceasefire in Gaza and bring the hostages home.” Many understandably objected that this statement was not consistent with the actions of the Biden Administration in which Harris was obviously a central figure. It does seem reasonable to assume, however, that it fairly represents Harris’s stance as presented to AOC. Did AOC actually believe Harris to be speaking the truth? That we cannot know. All we know is that she chose to take the Vice president’s contention at face value and pass on to the convention. Other statements AOC made around the time of the convention do, however, provide a broader perspective of her take on the situation at that time.
AOC expanded on her outlook in video conversation with New York City Council Member Chi Osse, recorded at the convention, acknowledging the obvious reality that the Biden administration was “continuing to provide weapons to Israel that have been dropping on innocent Gazans,” and therefore, “Neither party’s official platform in my opinion is good on Palestine. I don’t think either party right now is doing justice to Palestinians,” but, by way of explaining her support for Harris, she continued, “That doesn’t mean that they’re the same. I think that a Donald Trump presidency would be absolutely catastrophic. I mean, he’s coming out here saying finish the job of a genocide.”
Her judgment would seem to have stood the test of time.
Some Gaza War opponents also objected to AOC’s agreement to appear in a photo with a New Yorker attending the Convention as part of his effort to recover the body of his Israeli-American son who was killed in Gaza. The fact is, though, that the return of hostages was never a contentious point, as evidenced by the fact that a resolution calling for their return had passed the House unanimously.
NOVEMBER 20, 2024 — RESOLUTION CONDEMNING THE GLOBAL RISE OF ANTISEMITISM AND CALLING UPON COUNTRIES AND INTERNATIONAL BODIES TO COUNTER ANTISEMITISM.
A resolution condemning the global rise of antisemitism and “endorsing and embracing the Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism” passed the House by a 388–21 margin.
AOC voted for the resolution — based upon what the resolution actually said, and not upon what its sponsors may have hoped people might believe it said.
For this, she encountered criticism that she had “voted for a resolution … which endorses a bogus Israel lobby definition of anti-Semitism.” While many Israel supporters — including the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance — — have relentlessly attempted to equate opposition to Israeli policy with antisemitism, the actual “working definition” of antisemitism — referred to in one of the House Resolution’s whereas’s — actually contains no mention of Israel. It reads, “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
Nor do the twelve Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism, referred to in the resolution, actually contain any mention of Israel.
However, since the document containing the Guidelines also contains a listing of what it deems examples of anti-Semitism that does include Israel, AOC’s assessment that the purpose of the resolution was “to get the left infighting” seems on the mark. At the time, she asked her Bluesky followers to “read the text of this bill.”
JUNE 30, 2025 — LETTER TO SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO
On June 30, 2025, Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib authored a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio declaring that the Israeli government food “blockade is starving Palestinian civilians in violation of international law, and the militarization of food will not help,” while calling for “an immediate end to the blockade, an immediate resumption of unfettered humanitarian aid entry into Gaza, the restoration of U.S. funding to UNRWA [United Nations Relief and Works Administration] and an immediate and lasting ceasefire.” She was joined in signing the letter by only 18 other members of Congress — Senator Bernie Sanders, and 17 members of the House.
Ocasio-Cortez was one of that 19.
JULY 18, 2025 DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL/“IRON DOME”
As a consistent critic of our government’s excessive military spending, Ocasio-Cortez voted against the final Defense Appropriations Bill — as she has done each year she has served in the House.
As is the norm, several proposed amendments were voted on in the process, one of which, offered by Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, would have eliminated funding for Israel’s “Iron Dome”, a defense system designed to intercept incoming rockets and shells . Six Democrats and two Republicans voted for the amendment.
AOC did not vote for the amendment to a bill she was planning to vote against.
She explained that while she opposed funding for all offensive weapons for Israel, she would not oppose a weapon designed to protect civilians, a position she had maintained in the past — a statement that her interest in protecting civilians encompassed everyone in Israel/Palestine.
As time passed, sentiment grew that supporting the system only added to the impunity in killing Palestinians on the part of the Israeli government, which merited no support of any kind. On April 1, 2026, AOC posted a statement declaring, “Consistent with my voting record to date, I will not support Congress sending more taxpayer dollars and military aid to a government that consistently ignores international law and U.S. Law,” explaining that, “The Israeli government is well able to fund the Iron Dome system” itself.
ENDORSEMENTS
In addition to her endorsement of Democratic Party presidential candidate Kamala Harris, AOC has been criticized for other endorsements or non-endorsements, i.e., endorsements which she did not make that others thought she should have. One writer noted that today she wouldn’t endorse herself, meaning that this year she has not endorsed insurgent candidates running against Democratic incumbents — exactly what she was in 2020.
AOC once famously said, “In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party, but in America, we are.” Recognizing the realities of working in a system that is not the type of parliamentary system that many of her supporters might wish it were, she understands the necessity of collaborating with people with whom she may have broad disagreements. (A situation with some similarities to working within the ideological “big tent” of today’s Democratic Socialists of America.)
Many past and present office holders will tell you that deciding on endorsements was one of the most unpleasant and difficult tasks of office because, unlike the situation with many important legislative matters, it wasn’t necessarily a matter of principle or policy. There was no simple right or wrong way to go about it.
The case of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is an excellent example. AOC has been criticized for saying that she expects to vote for him for Speaker of the House should the Democrats win control in the Fall. The criticism is not surprising, given the chant of “You’re next!” that erupted with Jeffries’ appearance on the large screen at the party celebrating the Primary Night victories of New York DSA congressional candidates.
However, when the above mentioned Chi Osse — a member of DSA — proposed to run against Jeffries, one of the NYDSA members who stood in line at a DSA Electoral Working Group meeting to speak against endorsing that campaign was New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani. Mamdani didn’t oppose the endorsement because he didn’t think Osse was better than Jeffries on the issues, but he simply argued that the campaign would impair the city’s ability to carry through on the program he had run on. Osse’s endorsement was not recommended, and he did not run. When you hold office, you don’t take on every battle.
So far as AOC goes, while she did not endorse congressional insurgents this year, she did endorse candidates running against incumbent Democratic New York State legislators, while Mamdani, who must deal with the legislature, did the reverse. That’s one way — among many possibilities — to handle the endorsement question.
Was it the right way? Well, the Internet, of course, is full of self-proclaimed authorities who will tell us exactly what is the proper endorsement path for socialists in office. And they might be right in some instances; they may be wrong. But one thing you can probably count on is that they’ve never actually held public office themselves.
(When Tom Gallagher was a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives during the Second Millennium, he found the endorsement question particularly vexing.)
Tom Gallagher is a native of the Hunts Point section of the Bronx. Coming to oppose the Vietnam War while a student at Regis High School in Manhattan, he became an antiwar activist while attending Boston College, subsequently represented the Allston Brighton section of Boston in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and later chaired the Boston chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.
If you’d like to receive articles directly when they are written, email TGTGTGTGTG@aol.com.