Ethics in a war

Anthony Blinken, USA Secretary of State, says: “Protecting civilians must be ‘job number one’ for Israel in Gaza.” As published by ‘The Times of Israel.’

What an immoral advice.

Ethics based on self-esteem and love for the people who value most to those who are fighting against a brutal enemy, demands another kind of morality. The opposite the one defended by the American responsible for White House´s international affairs.

In the war between Israel and the Palestinians from Gaza, as well in any war, ethics applied to warfare, must follow below roadmap:

The number one priority of a soldier is to kill the enemy because it increases his chances of survival and victory, which is the goal.

The second priority of a soldier is to protect himself, while continuing to attack the enemy, because if the soldier gets killed, the #1 priority cannot be accomplished.

A soldier’s third priority is to protect his trench mates, who share priorities #1 and #2 with him.

Priority number four is to protect those in the rearguard who provide the necessary means so that the soldiers in the front can complete priorities #1, #2, and #3.

Priority number five is to protect the population of his own country, civilian or not, by completing priorities #1, #2, #3, and #4.

Priority number six states that if killing civilians from the enemy country is an unavoidable consequence of meeting priorities 1–5, the soldier must do so. After all, the enemy is solely responsible for the unwanted toll.

It is the responsibility of the enemies to protect their own populations, not the soldier fighting against them. Those who started the war are responsible for any consequences that may arise.

It is completely immoral to put a soldier’s life at risk, in order to save the sons, brothers, parents, or grandparents of the enemy´s soldiers, who initiated the violent attacks. Even more so if the fighters are nothing but barbaric, cruel, psychopathic terrorists.