Bombings are always the result of failure. Violence is the final refuge of the incompetent. Sometimes necessary certainly, but never correct with appropriate foresight.

And revenge being the reason behind any action is foolish. It’s like making the focus of prison punishment instead of rehabilitation. When you drop bombs, it should be with particular policy goals in mind.

I also think that it would be preferable if things in the Middle East got calmer, not more escalated. If I had the choice between less violence there and more, I will certainly chose the less.

So, we then have to define what we mean by “bombing Israel.” Wanton bombing I can see no argument for that isn’t simply punitive, which is clearly bad under the aforementioned criteria.

There may be an argument for a targeted strike to just target Netanyahu. You have to ask yourself what the goals and effects of such a strike would be. I think it is unlikely to greatly change Israel’s posture. Netanyahu is unpopular domestically, as is this war, but the nation of Israel has a history of rallying around martyrs that would probably overwhelm any gains by having Netanyahu out of the picture. This would also likely lead towards an even greater retaliatory strike against Iran (which, again, would also be bad.)

So what’s the benefit of bombing Israel other than “it makes me feel good to hurt a bad guy”? Why is it actually good?