Their liability, their duty, their responsibility is to their citizens, not to someone elses citizens, unless they are allied. So yes, a soldiers life is worse less than a civialians, when that civilians is of the same nationality as the soldier. That is the soldiers purpose to protect the civilian, THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ENEMIES CIVILIANS, YES, THE OPPOSING SOLDIERS SHOULDN'T TRY TO KILL THEM BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEY SHOULD NOT TAKE RISK FOR THEM. FOR EXAMPLE, THE IDF SHOULD TAKE RISKS FOR ISRAELIS, AND HAMAS SHOULD TAKE RISKS FOR GAZANS. HAMAS TAKING RISKS FOR GAZAN CIVILIANS MEANS NOT USING GAZANS AS A HUMAN SHIELD OR FIGHTING FROM WITHIN THE CIVILIAN POPULATION IN PLAIN CLOTHES. FOR EXAMPLE, IF HAMAS HAD BALLS, COURAGE AND CARED FOR ITS PEOPLE, IT COULD MEAN THINGS LIKE, BUSING ALL GAZAN CIVILIANS TO A SAFE AREA AWAY FROM THE FIGHTING LEAVING ONLY COMBATANTS IN THE AREA. YOUR THOUGHTS TO THAT?
Iranian parliamentary panel gives conditional nod to nuke deal (Reuters)
from the article: Pro-Mideast in America: Getting past 'Pro-Israel' and 'Pro-Palestine'