> The simple answer is that the life of an Israeli civilian is considered (by the IDF) to be worth more than that of a palestinian civilian.
It's important here to draw a philosophical distinction between the claim that the lives of some groups are more important than the lives of others, and the claim that a particular person or organization has a greater duty to some groups than others. It's perfectly consistent to think that each parent has a greater duty to protect their own children (possibly at the expense of other lives), and that each military has a greater duty to protect its own civilians, without actually thinking that anyone is more intrinsically valuable than anyone else.
I think that's a reasonable analysis, but incomplete. If a nation state occupies territory that does not belong to them (for whatever, possibly well-founded reasons), and therefore controls, by force, the lives and freedoms of the inhabitants, then I would argue that along with the authority that force gives them, comes a 'duty of care' towards the civilians of the occupied territory, at least equal of that owed their own citizens.
[EDIT] -----
To quote Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State regarding the possible invasion of Iraq:
'You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,' he told the president. 'You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.' Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.[1]
------------
I agree that a parent has a greater duty of care to protect their own children than someone else's children. However, to extend your analogy, if I have someone else's children staying at my house, then I am literally 'in loco parentis' ("in place of a parent") for those children. I would argue that I have a duty of care to those children and their parents that is AT LEAST equal to my duty of care towards my own children.
A better analogy might be that of a school. Maybe the kids don't want to be there, maybe their parents don't want them in that school either, but once the children are there with the teachers 'in loco parentis', surely it is unacceptable for teachers in that school to take actions that make it safer for the teachers by making it less safe for the children? For example, would it be ok for the teachers to carry tasers to protect themselves in case a child attempts to assault them?
> I would argue that I have a duty of care to those children and their parents that is AT LEAST equal to my duty of care towards my own children.
Well, first this would only plausibly apply to dangers that have to do with you taking responsibility for the children. Is there is some exogenous risk that has nothing to do with where the children happen to be at a given time (a condition that is not analogous to the middle east) then you probably don't have duty to them above and beyond the normal case.
Second, and more importantly, if a choice really must be made then parents are empirically always going to choose their own children, and this is perhaps something you need to weigh when you let your children leave. Even in the extreme case where I am a parent directly responsible for putting my own and other's children at risk (e.g., I take them on a dangerous hike), I'm going to save my child before others. Note sure if that's moral, but that's the way it is.
> would it be ok for the teachers to carry tasers to protect themselves in case a child attempts to assault them?
Here I think there's a risk of conflating the outside-group/inside-group distinction we've been discussing with the adult/children distinction. I agree that teachers need to err on the side of putting themselves at risk rather than children, but this comes more from the fact that we all have greater duties to all children (regardless of relation) than we do to adults, because children are both more vulnerable and more innocent (in the sense of being less responsible for their predicament).
And I would argue that in a trade-off between police or military safety vs civilian safety, civilians are similarly "both more vulnerable and more innocent (in the sense of being less responsible for their predicament)" than the military or police that interacts with them.
It's a common but mistaken way of thinking. If the IDF instead resolved that its remit was to protect both Israelis and Palestinians from harm, then conflict would be reduced and more Israeli lives would be saved.
weak ass downvote. It is not perfectly consistent, nor logical, to say that violent actions toward people by other people in favor of particular people don't assign intrinsic value to all of those people.
But it is something a lot of people tell themselves because it makes it easy to sleep perfectly consistently, every night.
It's important here to draw a philosophical distinction between the claim that the lives of some groups are more important than the lives of others, and the claim that a particular person or organization has a greater duty to some groups than others. It's perfectly consistent to think that each parent has a greater duty to protect their own children (possibly at the expense of other lives), and that each military has a greater duty to protect its own civilians, without actually thinking that anyone is more intrinsically valuable than anyone else.