The Israeli bombing of Gaza and the potential bombing of Syria are being discussed these days, the bombing of Libya and potential bombing of Iran having receded from the general consciousness for the time being.
I’ve been observing the four different stances on the bombing of Gaza and the potential bombing of Syria and have noticed that the thought processes and justifications sometimes put forward are interesting to say the least.
- Some support the Israeli bombing of Gaza and the potential bombing of Syria by Western powers.
A political ideology which is a swampland of conquest and bloodlust (usually there is also a good measure of anti-Muslim sentiment added to the mix) and those with this view would probably have been very comfortable back in the colonial period - but of course only if you were one of the colonialists.
- Some are against both the Israeli bombing of Gaza and the potential bombing of Syria by Western powers.
This is my own personal view.
But there are the qualifications that Israel has to stop imposing conditions on Gaza which provoke militants there into believing that lobbing rockets at Israel is their only alternative, and that the militants in Gaza need to seriously reassess their tactics, and need to be supported in this reassessment by other countries.
And with the understanding that the upheaval in Syria can be resolved through dialogue and negotiation. Western bombing would light the fuse of greater conflict rather than stabilize or calm the situation.
And the acknowledgement that the West needs to consign to history the leftover colonial practice of using military force against those who are on their very selective and self-serving ‘bad’ list - along with its condescending sibling that ‘We need to step in and straighten these people out because they are too underdeveloped to do it themselves’.
- Some support the Israeli bombing of Gaza but are against the potential bombing of Syria by Western powers.
A half-baked view which is usually the result a progressive mindset coupled with a belief that Israel is a ‘special case’ deserving indulgence. The only thing really ‘special’ about Israel is its success in convincing some people that it is special. Israel is just one of the 190 or so countries on Earth.
- Some are against the Israeli bombing of Gaza but support the potential bombing of Syria by Western powers.
This to me is the most fascinatingly bizarre view.
The mental gymnastics and/or ignorance of those with these views must be breathtakingly vast.
Some points which fascinate me about this view are that those with this view:
Condemn the deaths of civilians in Gaza but seem to be OK with the deaths of civilians who would be killed as a result of any Western bombing of Syria.
Vehemently believe that negotiations are the path to a solution in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel while vociferously stating that there is no room for negotiations in Syria.
Seemingly sincerely believe that the Palestinians in Gaza (along with all Palestinians) should have the ability to exercise their right to self-determination while oddly supporting the external imposition of a government in Syria which Western powers intend to be ‘Western-friendly’ and ‘cooperative’.
So, who do you want to bomb or to be bombed?