AOC isn't radical enough for the anti-Israel Left. It's a sinister sign of the future
An anti-Israel group called the 'Boogie Down Liberation Front' took responsibility for Monday night's act of vandalism in a message to a local journalist, stating 'The Bronx is sick and tired of people like AOC … using us as a stepping stone for their own political careers'. It added that their community 'stands with the people of Palestine and we denounce the hypocrisy of AOC who voted to fund Israel's ongoing genocide and starvation campaign in Gaza.'
At immediate issue was Ocasio-Cortez's vote last Friday against an amendment to a military spending bill that would have cut millions in aid to Israel for its air defence systems. The amendment, which only six Congressmen supported, was proposed by Ocasio-Cortez's polar political opposite, Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican Congresswoman from Georgia, whose apparent motivation was her belief that Israel no longer requires American taxpayer assistance due to its successful military operations earlier this year. Greene's amendment was also supported by noted anti-Israel Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.
Ocasio-Cortez has argued that the amendment would have done 'nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza'. She maintains that she still believes Israel is committing genocide, but that it should not be denied defensive weapons. That was not enough for some increasingly extreme factions on the Left, however, which consider approving any amount of support for Israel to be unacceptable.
It should go without saying that nobody should be cheering on the vandalism of any politician's campaign office. Ocasio-Cortez's campaign has also revealed that she has received an increased number of death threats in recent days – a disturbing reminder that political violence is never far from the surface in American politics today.
It also says something very concerning about where the American Left is heading that she should become a target of their vitriol. Back in 2018, she had a roaring start on the Left-wing of the Democratic Party. A one-time barmaid who claimed to speak progressive, working class truth to corporate power, regardless of party, she rode the anti-incumbency trend in the midterm elections of Donald Trump's first presidency to become the youngest woman ever to sit in the US Congress. She went on to be one of the very few American politicians so well known that her initials often supersede her name, a distinction usually reserved for presidents of the order of FDR or JFK.
In office, AOC emerged as the best known member of the 'Squad', a small group of Left-wing Congresswomen whom many progressives hailed as the future of US politics. Her radical agenda made her a role model for young Democrats who distrust their party's older and more moderate leadership, and a bugbear for flustered Republicans who only made her more popular in constant media attacks.
In recent years, however, AOC seems to have lost her progressive lustre, even if her politics haven't really changed. Last year, her stance on Israel caused the Democratic Socialists of America – a national progressive organisation that had backed her since her first standing for office – to withdraw its endorsement, accusing her of 'deep betrayal'.
AOC clearly retains substantial popularity among Democrats – at over $15 million, her campaign contributions in 2025 exceed those of all other members of Congress this year as she considers greater ambitions, possibly including a primary challenge to fellow Democrat Chuck Schumer for his New York Senate seat. Some 72 per cent of those funds came from outside her congressional district.
But the vandalism at her office – alongside other trends, like the emergence of Zohran Mamdani as the Democrat nominee for mayor of New York City – suggests that the Left is beginning to turn in a far more sinister direction.
Paul du Quenoy is a historian and president of the Palm Beach Freedom Institute.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Higher US tariffs part of the price Europe was willing to pay for its security and arms for Ukraine
France's prime minister described it as a 'dark day' for the European Union, a 'submission' to U.S. tariff demands. Commentators said EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen's handshake with President Donald Trump amounted to capitulation. The trouble is, Europe depends mightily on the United States, and not just for trade. Mirroring Trump, Von der Leyen gushed that the arrangement she endorsed over the weekend to set U.S. tariff levels on most European exports to 15%, which is 10% higher than currently, was 'huge.' Her staff texted reporters insisting that the pact, which starts to enter force on Friday, is the 'biggest trade deal ever.' A month after NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte ingratiated himself with Trump by referring to him as 'daddy,' the Europeans had again conceded that swallowing the costs and praising an unpredictable president is more palatable than losing America. 'It's not only about the trade. It's about security. It's about Ukraine. It's about current geopolitical volatility. I cannot go into all the details,' EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told reporters Monday. 'I can assure you it was not only about the trade,' he insisted, a day after 'the deal' was sealed in an hour-long meeting once Trump finished playing a round of golf with his son at the course he owns in Scotland. The state of Europe's security dependency Indeed, Europe depends on the U.S. for its security and that security is anything but a game, especially since Russia invaded Ukraine. U.S. allies are convinced that, should he win, President Vladimir Putin is likely to take aim at one of them next. So high are these fears that European countries are buying U.S. weapons to help Ukraine to defend itself. Some are prepared to send their own air defense systems and replace them with U.S. equipment, once it can be delivered. 'We're going to be sending now military equipment and other equipment to NATO, and they'll be doing what they want, but I guess it's for the most part working with Ukraine,' Trump said Sunday, sounding ambivalent about America's role in the alliance. The Europeans also are wary about a U.S. troop drawdown, which the Pentagon is expected to announce by October. Around 84,000 U.S. personnel are based in Europe, and they guarantee NATO's deterrent effect against an adversary like Russia. At the same time, Trump is slapping duties on America's own NATO partners, ostensibly due to concerns about U.S. security interests, using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, a logic that seems absurd from across the Atlantic. Weaning Europe off foreign suppliers 'The EU is in a difficult situation because we're very dependent on the U.S. for security,' said Niclas Poitiers at the Bruegel research institution in Brussels. 'Ukraine is a very big part of that, but also generally our defense is underwritten by NATO.' 'I think there was not a big willingness to pick a major fight, which is the one (the EU) might have needed with the U.S.' to better position itself on trade, Poitiers told The Associated Press about key reasons for von der Leyen to accept the tariff demands. Part of the agreement involves a commitment to buy American oil and gas. Over the course of the Russia-Ukraine war, now in its fourth year, most of the EU has slashed its dependence on unreliable energy supplies from Russia, but Hungary and Slovakia still have not. 'Purchases of U.S. energy products will diversify our sources of supply and contribute to Europe's energy security. We will replace Russian gas and oil with significant purchases of U.S. LNG, oil and nuclear fuels,' von der Leyen said in Scotland on Sunday. In essence, as Europe slowly weans itself off Russian energy it is also struggling to end its reliance on the United States for its security. The Trump administration has warned its priorities now lie elsewhere, in Asia, the Middle East and on its own borders. That was why European allies agreed at NATO's summit last month to spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on defense over the next decade. Primarily for their own security, but also to keep America among their ranks. The diplomacy involved was not always elegant. 'Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win,' Rutte wrote in a private text message to Trump, which the U.S. leader promptly posted on social media. Rutte brushed off questions about potential embarrassment or concern that Trump had aired it, saying: 'I have absolutely no trouble or problem with that because there's nothing in it which had to stay secret.' A price Europe feels it must pay Von der Leyen did not appear obsequious in her meeting with Trump. She often stared at the floor or smiled politely. She did not rebut Trump when he said that only America is sending aid to Gaza. The EU is world's biggest supplier of aid to the Palestinians. With Trump's threat of 30% tariffs hanging over European exports — whether real or brinksmanship is hard to say — and facing the prospect of a full-blown trade dispute while Europe's biggest war in decades rages, 15% may have been a cheap price to pay. 'In terms of the economic impact on the EU economy itself, it will be negative,' Poitiers said. 'But it's not something that is on a comparable magnitude like the energy crisis after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or even COVID.' 'This is a negative shock for our economy, but it is something that's very manageable,' he said. It remains an open question as to how long this entente will last. ___
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's charm is lost on Britain, but he has won Trump's heart
You couldn't help but get the impression that Trump found opening a new golf course at least as important as running a country. I can't actually recall any past president combining the launch of his own private business venture with the office of the presidency in this fashion but there we are. It's a new world order. He did make the point in his celebratory speech that stopping a war was, after all, rather more valuable an achievement than creating a golf course so perhaps that's reassuring. What had become clear once again on this visit – which had been described as a private holiday but was, in fact, the scene of some major diplomatic developments – was that our own dear Prime Minister was far and away the US president's favourite foreign leader. We must, of course, be grateful for this fact even if we do find it totally mystifying. Sir Keir's charm may be lost on the home audience but he is the undoubted favourite of the Trump White House and this is not solely because he is the messenger for our Royal family whom the president obviously adores. No, it is the Starmer personality itself which appears to have won Trump's heart. Why? My own guess, borrowing on my recollection of American responses to various brands of foreign behaviour is that Starmer's personality represents what Americans tend to regard as quintessential Britishness: a preternatural calmness in the face of difficulties (which is to say, a face that remains expressionless at all times) and a sycophantic courtesy which somehow manages to remain dignified. We got a hint of this when Trump referred to Sir Keir's 'beautiful accent'. Perhaps the contrast with the Macron vanity and arrogance has helped too, but whatever it is, we must acknowledge that the Starmer magic has pulled off a pretty favourable result. And ironically enough, it is precisely our separateness from the European Union – which Sir Keir is trying to undo – that made this favoured position possible. Rather less happily for the Starmer government, the president offered some advice on how to pull the UK out of its spiral of decline. Stop the boats and cut taxes was the magic formula, Mr Trump suggested presumably in a spirit of helpfulness. The problem with this counsel is that both those things are almost impossible to achieve at the moment and they are, as it happens, precisely what the most threatening Opposition parties are urging. That was rather tactless and it suggests that this alliance with Trump's Right-wing Republicanism is not going to be an easy ride. But whatever it was in Starmer's approach that did it, he is currently able to influence the Trump White House at a time when global affairs are dangerously inflamed. That may or may not be an enviable position to be in. On the Middle East and Ukraine, as well as the economic future of the West, the moral responsibility of being the 'Trump whisperer' is going to be daunting.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
CNN fact-checks Trump's Beyoncé $11 million payment claim
A CNN fact check poured cold water on President Donald Trump's claim that Kamala Harris' campaign paid megastar Beyoncé $11 million for an endorsement. The famous singer endorsed Harris at a campaign rally in Houston just weeks before the election last November in a last-minute bid to jolt support for the Democratic nominee. Trump has alleged that Harris's political team illegally paid for the support, and that they should be prosecuted for it. 'I'm looking at the large amount of money owed by the Democrats, after the presidential e lection , and the fact that they admit to paying, probably illegally, eleven million dollars to singer Beyoncé for an endorsement (she never sang, not one note, and left the stage to a booing and angry audience!)' Trump wrote on Saturday. The Truth Social post also alleged that Oprah Winfrey was paid $3 million for 'expenses' and MSNBC's Al Sharpton was given $600,000. 'These ridiculous fees were incorrectly stated in the books and records,' Trump claimed. 'You are not allowed to pay for an endorsement. It is totally illegal to do so. Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out! Kamala, and all of those that received Endorsement money, broke the law. They should all be prosecuted!' However, an article from CNN's fact checker Daniel Dale asserted that Trump's allegation was baseless. Evidence of the $11 million payment has not been reported. The White House did not respond to the Daily Mail's request for evidence of the multi-million dollar payment. Harris' campaign has denied paying for endorsements and Beyoncé's mother, Tina Knowles, has called the allegations a 'lie.' 'Beyonce did not receive a penny for speaking at a presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harrris' (sic) Rally in Houston,' Knowles wrote on her Instagram. According to an Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing , Harris' campaign payed the signer's production company, Parkwood Production Media, $165,000 for 'campaign event production.' Additionally, a spokesperson for Harris' campaign said last year that the political operation did not pay for celebrity endorsements, but they did concede that they had to cover costs associated with the production, like staff and equipment. Another denial came when a spokesperson for Beyoncé told PolitiFact last year that the claim the singer was paid millions was 'beyond ridiculous.' Harris' campaign paid a non-profit led by Sharpton a total of $500,000, FEC filings show. The Democrat's political operation also paid Harpo Productions, a company owned by Oprah, $1 million for a live stream event. Trump last spoke about the alleged endorsement payment in February. 'They go out and they pay Beyoncé, as an example. Somebody just showed me something. They gave her $11 million,' the president said at the time. In a May post on Truth Social the president again slammed the alleged payment to Beyoncé while also suggesting that Bruce Springsteen accepted money for his performance at a Harris rally.
