There's a saying in German: "Konsequenz heißt auch Holzwege zu Ende gehen".

Loosely translated, that means something like "Being consistent means also walking the wrong paths to the end".

Peter Mansoor (a U.S. Army Colonel who was a big part of the strategic shift in Iraq around 2006 to a counterinsurgency doctrine) has written a bunch about the "clear, hold, build" strategy where U.S. troops took territory with a promise they would stay long enough to rebuild it and peacefully hand it over to the local government partners. You can find some of his writing published through the university where he teaches and publishes.

Counterinsurgency (also known as COIN in military circles) was a shift in emphasis, compared to the prior 3 years or so, where the civilian population was seen as partners and a "territory" of sorts to try to win. There was a lot of talk of "hearts and minds" being a key component to winning the war, because foreign occupiers would never have the same level of local knowledge as the actual locals, and having the general population on your side meant that insurgents couldn't hide in the community.

It didn't actually work out that way all the time (and frankly, my opinion is that the strategy utterly failed in Afghanistan, even if Iraq eventually stabilized). But that was the doctrine and that was the core strategy pursued by U.S. troops at least from 2006 onward. Civilians mattered, not just in that harming them should be avoided even while pursuing military objectives, but civilian well-being actually counted as a primary military objective in itself.

But even before COIN became the big buzzword in the U.S. military, the strategy did still emphasize the need to take responsibility for the well being of civilians in a war zone. Colin Powell famously warned George W. Bush of what Thomas Friedman would call the "Pottery Barn Rule" where "if you break it, you own it," in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And Powell was clear that he was specifically referring to the 26 million residents of Iraq looking to the United States in what would govern Iraq after the "regime change." It was always understood, even among the most hawkish strategists in the U.S., that invasion carried a responsibility of rebuilding.

I'm not in any way an expert on Gaza, but from my casual observations it sure does seem like the Israeli military doesn't put anywhere near the same priority of making sure that civilians aren't unnecessarily harmed in their military operations.

Or those that vote one way get replaced by those who vote the other way.