Should civilian protection take priority over national security in times of war?

As the Israel–Iran conflict escalates, over 250 civilians have died and thousands more are injured. Images of bombed homes, injured children, and overwhelmed hospitals dominate headlines. Supporters of prioritizing civilian safety argue that any military operation that causes such mass suffering should be halted or re-evaluated. They say the state's legitimacy and ethical standing depend on protecting its people first—even during war. International laws like the Geneva Conventions exist precisely to prevent such humanitarian disasters. Opponents argue that while tragic, civilian harm can be an unavoidable part of defending a nation under threat. They claim military goals must be achieved swiftly to reduce long-term conflict, and selective targeting is not always possible. Some suggest that critics underestimate the chaos and moral complexity of modern warfare. This debate questions whether civilian safety is a universal right or a casualty of unavoidable priorities during war.