So, this is a dumb explanation. It’s like saying you would never support giving a knight a sword, just armor and a sheild. The armor and sheild are what let’s him mow down peasants on the battlefield with impunity, you can’t separate them out.

That being said, this is getting fucking ridiculous. The amendment was never going to pass (it got 6 votes), so this was entirely symbolic. Beyond that, she voted against the defense spending bill it was attached to, so in end, she didn’t support arms to anyone. She’s also one of the strongest voices on Gaza in congress (an admittedly low bar); she’s been voting against sending arms to Israel since before October 7th, she usually votes, “present,” on Iron Dome funding, and she’s called what’s happening in Gaza a genocide on the House floor. I can count on one hand the number of U.S. politicians willing to say, “genocide,” when talking about Israel. Behind Omar and Talib, she’s probably the most reliable pro-Palestinian Representative.

I’m assuming that she had some reason for voting against the amendment, and I assume it has to do with optics. Maybe she she thought siding with MTG would hurt her, maybe she thought voting against the Iron Dome would make her vulnerable to AIPAC attacks. It sucks, but Bowman and Bush both lost their seats to AIPAC money. The reality is you have to play politics sometimes, and if that means not making a symbolic vote for a doomed amendment, that’s not the worst compromise to make.