Generally soldiers are fair targets when carrying out military activities, not when they are (for example) off duty or reservists or the like. Things get a little murky with combatants who aren't soldiers per se (no uniform, no official duties, no clear delineation between their civilian life and their military duties) as is the case of the military arm of Hamas. But for a conventional military, that is the rule.
Uniformed on-duty soldiers are also generally off limits if they are, for example, assisting in the delivery of humanitarian aid to the civilians of the enemy (as was the case of a soldier who was wounded by a rocket/mortar attack while supervising delivery of aid to Gaza at a border crossing).
The US funds both defensive and offensive armaments for Israel, and they sell additional weapons to Israel above and beyond the military aid. The UK does not provide substantial funding (or any?) for the Israeli military but UK companies do sell weapons to Israel (and vice versa). I think it's perfectly reasonable for the US and other countries to want to know how their weapons are being used, and indeed there have been some US restrictions in the past - most notably some associated with Israeli plans to sell weapons to other countries.And if the US (and UK) are the major funders of Israel's defense systems and weaponry, why should we ignore their offense tactics when they're in breach of previous agreements?
That the US has chosen a relatively hands off approach in the Middle East in policing how their weapons are used (by e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, etc.) can be attributed to any number of potential motives: realpolitik, corporate greed, moral decay, or even a genuine belief that on the balance the weapons are improving regional security and stability.





Reply With Quote