It makes zero sense to only remove defense unless your goal is more death on both sides rather than lessening the current amount of deaths.
I think that the logic here, if anything in Greene’s head could pass for logic, is that limiting Israel’s defensive support could make them more vulnerable and and thereby hopefully force them to the negotiation table and or at least provide motivation for a cease fire since they would be more at risk. Right now they are in a position where they can be as aggressive as they want to whomever they like without concern for retaliation.
While I agree that stopping all weapons shipments to Israel should be the goal, stopping defensive systems could make them dial back offensive moves thus reducing casualties on the other side.
I think that the logic here, if anything in Greene’s head could pass for logic, is that limiting Israel’s defensive support could make them more vulnerable and and thereby hopefully force them to the negotiation table and or at least provide motivation for a cease fire since they would be more at risk. Right now they are in a position where they can be as aggressive as they want to whomever they like without concern for retaliation.
While I agree that stopping all weapons shipments to Israel should be the goal, stopping defensive systems could make them dial back offensive moves thus reducing casualties on the other side.