In recent debates over military aid to Israel, a new distinction has taken hold: support for defense, but not for offense.

At first glance, it sounds reasonable—even principled. Defensive systems save lives. Offensive weapons escalate conflict. Who wouldn’t prefer one over the other?

But this distinction collapses under even modest scrutiny. Because in practice, it does not mean “defense versus offense.” It means something far more consequential: allowing a country to intercept incoming attacks, while restricting its ability to stop those attacks at their source.

That is not a strategy. It is a posture of managed vulnerability – at Israel’s expense.

No nation at war operates this way. Not the United States. Not NATO. Not Ukraine, which continues to receive Western support not only to defend its cities, but to strike Russian supply lines, command centers, and staging areas. The logic is straightforward: a country cannot defend itself indefinitely by absorbing blows. At some point, it must degrade the enemy’s capacity to inflict them.

Israel now finds itself in a different category.

Since October 7, it has faced........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)