In thinking about this it occurred to me that the issue pertains to individuals and to nations. My question related to the individual, which I will drill down into a bit, but the discussion was about nations. While I will continue with the individual, because it is deeply relevant to me, I will roll it into the context of the original issue of Israel-Palestine.
When I was in bootcamp, one of my drill instructors told us that if we thought an order was unlawful, we could refuse to carry it out, but we would have to defend that choice at our Court Martial. If it was lawful, while distasteful, we could end up behind bars.
The distasteful. Upon realizing the reality of the war, we are in, moral objections could rise to the surface. We "could" petition for conscientious objector status which we may or may not be able to obtain. Do we wish to not carry a rifle or not participate in any way, even in a non-combatant position?
There is a gray area between, this is war and it's what we do, and I don't want to do this. The questionable things that haunt veterans for the rest of their lives and can be as debilitating as PTSD or lead to suicide.
For the ones at the bottom, the scenario that I mentioned, the enemy pops up in the crowd of children at the bridge where the choice is a rifle, as precision as possible with the possibility of the unintended deaths of non-combatants or a frag which will without a doubt have non-combatant casualties. Everyone makes their own choices based upon their personal sense of morality.
Taking that scenario in the direction of your train switch example, is that threat likely to result in casualties of your comrades? Is loyalty to my fellow Marines of higher importance (to me) than the lives of the non-combatant children? Both would be haunting. The highest priority for most would be our brothers in arms.
That is tempered by time and urgency. Being under fire is urgent, the enemy that might be (we think he is) in that hospital is a bit different. Are hey actively launching rockets?
Those situations are all a bit different with different decisions to be made, some by reflex. In one case in my platoon that make the decision now situation resulted in a fratricide. Considering the circumstances, the man that was killed screwed up and got himself killed, but the fact remains that the man who shot him had to live with that. Sometimes there are no good choices.
That brings us to Gaza. Is the idea that killing all of Hamas a viable strategic objective? Since that quest is creating more enemies, probably not. So, when should they stop? What is a reasonable stopping point? When Hamas quits fighting? Is it a terror campaign carried out for revenge? To some degree I think that is probably true. Moral? Most of the dead are non-combatants who live there and can't do a thing to stop Hamas. A bit like tossing the frag into a group of children because an enemy "might" be in the crowd.
Is Israel fighting a counter insurgency against Hamas where it is both morally and strategically correct to minimize civilian deaths, or is it a war on the Palestinian people where they are all thought to be the enemy? Laying waste to Gaza+ makes it look like the later, but I was only an NCO, not a General so it's above my pay grade.
I don't know if that answers you question to your satisfaction or not.
If you have time for reading, I recommend this book. If you don't, take a look at the sample. It could go a long way toward understanding.
https://www.amazon.com/Fields-Fire-Novel-James-Webb-ebook/dp/B000SEFH74/
I've ordered the book, thanks.
I'd still be interested in your own answers, if you have time.
In thinking about this it occurred to me that the issue pertains to individuals and to nations. My question related to the individual, which I will drill down into a bit, but the discussion was about nations. While I will continue with the individual, because it is deeply relevant to me, I will roll it into the context of the original issue of Israel-Palestine.
When I was in bootcamp, one of my drill instructors told us that if we thought an order was unlawful, we could refuse to carry it out, but we would have to defend that choice at our Court Martial. If it was lawful, while distasteful, we could end up behind bars.
The distasteful. Upon realizing the reality of the war, we are in, moral objections could rise to the surface. We "could" petition for conscientious objector status which we may or may not be able to obtain. Do we wish to not carry a rifle or not participate in any way, even in a non-combatant position?
There is a gray area between, this is war and it's what we do, and I don't want to do this. The questionable things that haunt veterans for the rest of their lives and can be as debilitating as PTSD or lead to suicide.
For the ones at the bottom, the scenario that I mentioned, the enemy pops up in the crowd of children at the bridge where the choice is a rifle, as precision as possible with the possibility of the unintended deaths of non-combatants or a frag which will without a doubt have non-combatant casualties. Everyone makes their own choices based upon their personal sense of morality.
Taking that scenario in the direction of your train switch example, is that threat likely to result in casualties of your comrades? Is loyalty to my fellow Marines of higher importance (to me) than the lives of the non-combatant children? Both would be haunting. The highest priority for most would be our brothers in arms.
That is tempered by time and urgency. Being under fire is urgent, the enemy that might be (we think he is) in that hospital is a bit different. Are hey actively launching rockets?
Those situations are all a bit different with different decisions to be made, some by reflex. In one case in my platoon that make the decision now situation resulted in a fratricide. Considering the circumstances, the man that was killed screwed up and got himself killed, but the fact remains that the man who shot him had to live with that. Sometimes there are no good choices.
That brings us to Gaza. Is the idea that killing all of Hamas a viable strategic objective? Since that quest is creating more enemies, probably not. So, when should they stop? What is a reasonable stopping point? When Hamas quits fighting? Is it a terror campaign carried out for revenge? To some degree I think that is probably true. Moral? Most of the dead are non-combatants who live there and can't do a thing to stop Hamas. A bit like tossing the frag into a group of children because an enemy "might" be in the crowd.
Is Israel fighting a counter insurgency against Hamas where it is both morally and strategically correct to minimize civilian deaths, or is it a war on the Palestinian people where they are all thought to be the enemy? Laying waste to Gaza+ makes it look like the later, but I was only an NCO, not a General so it's above my pay grade.
I don't know if that answers you question to your satisfaction or not.