War, and those who lead it, are full of hypocrisy.
After this tragic event, Netanyahu gives a speech chastising this one that one for these deaths. Meanwhile, he's orchestrating the deaths of hundreds, thousands.
And I'll say it again before any of you start on me, I'm simply using this case as an example, I am not taking or implying sides in making this post. I am making reference to the sheer and utter hypocrisy of war. If you stop and think about it, it actually beggars belief.
I think we should give very careful consideration to treating military as heros irrespective of the theatre of conflict in which they participated.
If it's not genuine self-defence, it should deserve no praise nor hero worship.
Violent retaliation should always be a last resort.
There's been only a few theatres of conflict for UK, where that principle applies, since the end of WW2. Although perhaps the violence was too quickly employed before other non-violent resolutions were sought.
Falklands, and the invasion of Kuwait applies. Although it's recognised that we were only supporting Kuwait, and we were not directly involved.
Ukraine is another conflict where we can justifiably support the defenders.
Palestine is another where we should be supporting those experiencing enormous suffering, and potential war crimes, including genocide.
The Israel offensive has become massive mission creep. Any vestige of proportionality or justification has long gone.
Any other theatre of conflict that has engaged UK military has been more of a mercenary involvement, including the supply of weapons.
In conclusion, I believe there is a middle ground when violence can be justified, this would mean that either extreme recklessness (too much) or cowardice (too little) should be avoided, as they are both vices. Instead, we should aim for the virtuous middle path.
It means using force wisely and only when all else has failed: this is what makes someone courageous in their use of force, and therefore deserves the title of hero.