The seeming paradox of opposing Vietnam while supporting Israel's military stance in 1967 challenged many American progressives, who struggled to reconcile their peace activism with hawkish views on the Six-Day War. Through the lens of popular "dove" and "hawk" metaphors of the era, a comparative analysis reveals how these apparently contradictory positions actually stem from consistent ethical principles applied to distinct geopolitical contexts. While both Vietnam and Israel confronted militarily superior opponents and claimed to fight with "no alternative" for independence, crucial differences emerged in their moral justifications and appropriate international responses. The methodology identifies key parallels and divergences between the conflicts, examining factors such as self-defense versus intervention in civil conflict, adherence to international agreements, and the viability of diplomatic versus military solutions. When each conflict receives independent moral scrutiny rather than blanket pacifist or militarist treatment, the apparent inconsistency dissolves. This analysis illuminates how individuals navigate complex foreign policy positions during periods of multiple international conflicts, demonstrating that consistent ethical frameworks can yield different policy prescriptions as geopolitical circumstances vary.