In the case of Israel, America, and other countries sending their 18 year olds to fight, the intention is for them to come back "alive" after the battle.
"The intention", hmm.. There is also the very possibly outcome that he might die fighting for his country, right?
The point is that if 18 is an age old enough to lay your life down for your country on one side, it is hypocrytical to condemn the other side because they "use children" in their armed attacks.
Now, I realize that the odds of coming back alive are much thinner on the Palestinian side. Still, the point remains that if 18 is "child", too young for armed conflict, it is so on both sides.
Other than that, the question of sending people with "no intention to come back" is one that should be discussed irrespective of age.
Re age matters, it might also help to remember that a teenager in the US is not the same thing as a teenager in the Middle East, where an 18 year old girl or guy could very well be married with a child or two on their side, fully expected to be an adult and supporting his/her family. |
