The question is not as simple as it seems…
Logically, one would assume that any strike against a universally agreed enemy should be received with at least a calm assessment, if not outright support. However, reality reveals that there are those who get disturbed, even angry, as if the strike was aimed at them and not their enemy.
To understand this situation, one must delve into its roots.
Firstly, there is what is known as cognitive dissonance, when reality clashes with preconceived beliefs. Some have built their stance over the years on rejecting or demonizing certain parties, and when they see these parties bomb what is supposed to be their enemy too, they face an internal conflict: Should they reconsider, or deny what they see? Many choose denial, because self-review is harder than rejecting the truth.
Secondly, the prior political alignment. Some do not judge the act itself, but instead the identity of the actor. If the actor belongs to an axis they disagree with politically or ideologically, the act is automatically rejected, even if it’s against a common enemy. Here, stances shift from national or ethical logic to narrow calculations.
Thirdly, the impact of accumulated media rhetoric. Years of promoting specific narratives have painted a distorted mental image, associating these parties with other conflicts (Syria, Iraq, sectarianism…), and assigning them fixed roles in the audience’s consciousness. When an event occurs outside this framework, it is not read as it is, but is reinterpreted to align with that preconceived image.
Fourthly, the fear of escalation consequences. Some of the unrest stems not from a rejection of the act itself, but from the fear of its results: the expansion of war, its repercussions on the region, or its direct impact domestically. This factor is understandable, but sometimes it is used to justify a stance that goes beyond fear to a rejection of any confrontation at all.
Fifthly, the link of some positions to interests. Some are accustomed to a “fragile stability” that serves their interests, even if it's based on an imbalance of justice. Any change in this reality is viewed as a threat, not as an opportunity to restore balance.
Finally, a crisis in defining priorities. When internal disagreements, whether political or sectarian, take precedence over the central enemy, the stance becomes confused. Then, the strike is not seen as an act against an enemy, but as an act from an “undesirable party,” and is rejected regardless of its content.
At its core, the issue is not in the event itself, but in how it is read.
Do we measure actions by their results and direction, or by the identity of the doer?
And has the enemy remained the same in our consciousness, or has the compass shifted without us realizing?
The conclusion: The nation grows with love and perishes with hatred.
