There’s No Such Thing as a 'Defensive Weapon'
Politicians call them 'defensive weapons' to make arming Israel sound unobjectionable, but the US military, Netanyahu, and Trump all know better.
Progressive presidential contender Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made headlines earlier this month when she pledged to oppose funding any weapons for Israel, including “defensive capabilities,” a call soon echoed by fellow progressives, including Senator Bernie Sanders. On Wednesday, after Senator Elissa Slotkin joined other possible centrist presidential hopefuls in casting their first-ever votes to block weapons sales to Israel, she reassured pro-Israel constituents by promising she would “continue to support sending Israel much-needed defensive weapons like Iron Dome.”
So What Exactly Is a ‘Defensive Weapon?’
To supporters of arming Israel, it’s an invaluable turn of phrase that implies a transferred weapon will only be used for the legally and morally unobjectionable purpose of self-defense. The “defensive weapons” in question are a series of Israeli air defense/anti-air systems jointly funded and developed by the US and Israel. Politicians often refer to these colloquially as the “Iron Dome,” the name of one of the systems. Proponents of US funding for these systems argue they are purely defensive in nature and are needed to protect civilians and save lives. Who could object to that?
US military doctrine, for one. In joint military doctrine, there’s no such thing as a “purely defensive” weapon. That’s because any weapon can be used in support of offensive or defensive operations. Even air defense weapons, though they confusingly have “defense” in the name. But there’s nothing inherently offensive or defensive about any given system. In other words, per US military manuals, it’s not what you have, it’s how you use it.
 | A guest post by
|