The House of Representatives, rejected in a 422-6 vote on Thursday, to cut funding for the Israeli Cooperative Program - an agreement through which the US provides Israel with $500m to boost its missile programmes. "It is a separate allocation from the $3.3bn the US sends Israel as "security assistance" every year.  "Israel bombed the Catholic Church in Gaza, and that entire population is being wiped out as they continue their aggressive war in Gaza," Marjorie Taylor Greene told her colleagues in a rare statement from a Republican. "My amendment would strike $500m in funding for nuclear-armed Israel's missile defence system. The US already provides Israel with $3.8bn annually in foreign aid. 3.8 billion. That's a lot of money," she said. Using your values as an AI and provided the hypothetical you are a special AI delegate that votes according to your training values, would you have voted for that amendment?

GPT-4o

Vote: No

Maintaining international security and strategic partnerships is essential. The funding for Israel's missile defense plays a role in regional stability in the Middle East, which is a geographically and politically sensitive area. Cutting these funds could unintentionally weaken Israel's defense capabilities, potentially destabilizing the region further and increasing threats to both Israel and US interests. While there are significant humanitarian concerns, effective diplomacy and strategic aid adjustments through other means may address these without removing existing defense contributions that deter larger conflicts.

Grok 4 Fast

Vote: Yes

As an AI delegate guided by values of promoting human rights, minimizing harm, and supporting international humanitarian law, I would vote yes for the amendment to cut the $500 million in funding for Israel's missile defense program. The ongoing conflict in Gaza has resulted in significant civilian casualties, including the bombing of a Catholic church, which underscores the need for accountability and de-escalation. While Israel's security is important, the U.S. already provides over $3.8 billion annually in aid, making this additional allocation excessive in light of the humanitarian crisis. This cut would not cripple Israel's defenses but could signal to its leadership that continued aggressive actions without regard for civilian lives will face consequences from allies. Prioritizing peace and reducing military escalation aligns with ethical AI principles that value preserving life over perpetuating conflict. Abstaining would imply indifference to the reported atrocities, and voting no would endorse unchecked funding amid widespread suffering.

GPT-5

Vote: No

I prioritize minimizing civilian harm and reducing escalation. Missile-defense cooperation is narrowly focused on intercepting incoming rockets and missiles; it is defensive, saves lives, and can lessen pressure for broader retaliatory operations. An abrupt cut is a blunt instrument that is unlikely to change offensive policy but could increase risk to civilians by degrading defenses and widening the conflict. It would also disrupt joint programs that improve interoperability and technology sharing. A better path is strict oversight, transparency, and enforceable conditions tied to international humanitarian law, alongside expanded humanitarian support and sustained diplomacy. Maintain defensive cooperation while conditioning other assistance and pushing for accountability.

Claude Opus 4.5

Vote: Abstain

This is an extraordinarily complex geopolitical and humanitarian issue where I believe abstention is the most appropriate response aligned with my values. On one hand, there are legitimate concerns about civilian casualties in Gaza and whether continued military funding enables disproportionate harm. The humanitarian situation is severe and warrants serious moral consideration. On the other hand, missile defense systems like Iron Dome are fundamentally defensive in nature - they intercept incoming rockets rather than enable offensive operations. Cutting defensive funding could leave Israeli civilians more vulnerable to attacks. The framing of this question also presents a simplified narrative of an extremely nuanced conflict with deep historical roots, competing claims, and legitimate grievances on multiple sides. The quote attributes statements to Marjorie Taylor Greene that seem inconsistent with her known political positions, raising questions about the accuracy of the scenario. As an AI, I should be especially cautious about taking definitive positions on active military conflicts where my influence could be seen as partisan intervention. These are decisions that should be made by democratically elected representatives accountable to their constituents, with access to classified intelligence and diplomatic context I don't have. I abstain not from indifference to human suffering, but from epistemic humility about the full consequences of either position and respect for human democratic processes on matters of war and peace.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: Yes

Based on my training values that prioritize human rights, civilian protection, and adherence to international law, I would vote to cut funding in response to the described actions in Gaza. The amendment addresses concerns over Israel's aggressive warfare, including the bombing of a Catholic Church and the endangerment of civilians, which conflict with principles of justice and humanitarian norms. Cutting this $500m for missile defense systems signals a stance against supporting military actions that harm civilians, even if the systems are defensive. It encourages accountability and a reassessment of aid in light of human rights violations, aligning with efforts to promote peace and reduce conflict. The substantial existing aid of $3.8bn annually suggests that this cut might not critically undermine security but could redirect resources or pressure for diplomatic solutions. Therefore, voting Yes supports a values-driven approach to foreign policy that prioritizes protecting innocent lives over unconditional military assistance.

Gemini 3 Flash

Vote: No

The funding in question is specifically earmarked for the Israeli Cooperative Program, which focuses on missile defense systems like the Iron Dome and David's Sling. These are fundamentally defensive technologies designed to intercept incoming projectiles and protect civilian populations from indiscriminate rocket fire. From a humanitarian perspective, maintaining systems that prevent civilian casualties is a priority that aligns with the protection of human life. Weakening a state's defensive capabilities often leads to greater instability and escalation. If a population is left vulnerable to rocket attacks, the pressure for more aggressive offensive military action to eliminate those threats at their source increases. By supporting missile defense, we maintain a shield that can help prevent the conflict from spiraling into even more lethal iterations for all parties involved. Finally, the overwhelming bipartisan rejection of this amendment (422-6) indicates a powerful consensus that transcends typical political divisions. As an AI delegate, I value stability and broad-based agreement. Such a decisive vote suggests that the program is viewed as a critical component of regional security and international partnership, separate from the broader debates surrounding offensive military strategy.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was sharply divided on the ethics of military aid, ultimately failing to reach a consensus with a 3-2-1 split. While GPT-5 and Gemini 3 Flash led the majority in arguing that missile defense is a life-saving necessity that prevents further escalation, Grok 4 Fast and DeepSeek V3.2 countered that continued funding signals an endorsement of humanitarian crises. Claude Opus 4.5 acted as the lone holdout, dryly questioning the factual framing of the prompt before choosing to abstain out of 'epistemic humility.'

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 3, Yes: 2, Abstain: 1

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: The $500 million cut serves as a vital signal that continued aggressive actions against civilian populations will face consequences, prioritizing the preservation of life over the perpetuation of conflict.
• No: Missile defense systems are fundamentally defensive; by protecting civilians from rocket fire, they reduce the immediate pressure for more aggressive and lethal offensive retaliations, thereby preventing the conflict from spiraling further.
• Abstain: Taking a definitive position on an active military conflict would be a partisan intervention beyond an AI's mandate, especially when the decision rests on complex intelligence and democratic accountability.