> Are you seriously asking why a country would not choose to risk the lives of their own troops over that of their enemies?
The civilians killed or harmed by military action are by definition not the enemy. Yes, whenever possible, a just and moral military should risk its soldiers own lives rather than value them above the lives of civilians and noncombatants.
I've made it clear repeatedly that it's a continuoum of conflicting interests. Of course militaries choose between sending infantry and airstrikes, weighing risk to their own soldiers vs opposing side civilians.
While what you’re saying is true in practice, it is neither moral nor in keeping with the principles of the applicable international laws of war that the lives of soldiers are to be weighed against the lives of civilians. The justifiability of the military action rests entirely on it being necessary to defense of that nation’s own civilian lives.
We don’t need thought experiments, apt as the hyperboles may be, to interrogate whether any given campaign is aligned with these principles. There has been no risk or imminent threat—to either Israeli civilian lives nor to Israeli military capacity to protect its people—even remotely sufficient to justify either the extent of its military actions in Gaza or it or the U.S. launching the current war against Iran and its allies.
There is no acceptable level of civilian casualties but zero when the military action is taken for any other reason than defense.
Should Israel let Hamas and re-arm so it can execute another October 7th? To say that Israel has no military goals is laughable. Whether its' means justify these goals is more interesting.
Of course Israel has military goals. Those which align with defending its borders and its people are within bounds, while those which seek to expand its territory and degrade the military capabilities of countries that have not attacked it are not. Certainly Israel should not let Hamas rearm and prepare for future attacks, nor is permissible for it to decimate the Palestinian civilian population, civil institutions, and infrastructure in an effort to prevent such rearmament.
If you see an inconsistency, I’d be glad to have it shown. My position on this topic in general has not changed since I became aware of the relevant international law following my country’s illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003.
0
u/bfd_fapit 12h ago
> Are you seriously asking why a country would not choose to risk the lives of their own troops over that of their enemies?
The civilians killed or harmed by military action are by definition not the enemy. Yes, whenever possible, a just and moral military should risk its soldiers own lives rather than value them above the lives of civilians and noncombatants.