Whose Protest Deserves Air Support
An instructional satire for activists navigating empire-approved compassion
There are many kinds of freedom in the modern world. There is freedom of speech (within reason), freedom of assembly (with permits), freedom of the press (owned by six corporations), and—most importantly—freedom delivered by a fighter jet.
This last category is the gold standard. If your protest attracts air support, you have made it. If not, please remain calm, chant responsibly, and wait your turn.
Welcome to the strategic age of freedom, where justice is universal in principle but selective in practice.
The Global Protest Talent Show
Imagine, if you will, that protests around the world are contestants on a televised competition called So You Think You Deserve Solidarity. The judges are Western governments, major media outlets, and a rotating panel of defense contractors pretending to be human rights experts.
On one side of the stage: Tel Aviv.
The streets are alive. Protesters chant passionately against their government. Flags wave. The visuals are cinematic. Democracy is performing beautifully tonight.
The judges lean forward.
“Look at that civic engagement,” one murmurs.
“Such a vibrant democracy,” says another.
“Amazing restraint,” adds a third, as riot police gently enforce democratic values.
Standing ovation. Immediate press coverage. Editorials titled This Is What Democracy Looks Like. Hashtags trend globally. Support pours in like foreign aid with good optics.
On the other side of the stage: Iran.
Citizens protest authoritarian rule, economic hardship, gender repression, and the everyday violence of the state. The courage is undeniable. The risks are immense.
The judges squint.
“Yes, but…”
“It’s complicated.”
“We must be careful.”
“Who’s funding them?”
“Could this destabilize the region?”
The applause is polite. Someone clears their throat. Cut to commercial.
Chosen Protests vs. Unchosen Protests
The difference is not courage. It is a status.
Israeli protesters occupy a special moral category. They are protesting within a friendly framework. A familiar democracy. An ally. A place whose people are often described—sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly—as chosen, exceptional, historically validated.
When they protest, it is seen as democracy correcting itself. Like a software update.
Iranian protesters, meanwhile, exist outside the trusted circle. Their protests are filtered through decades of sanctions, demonization, and orientalist suspicion. When they protest, it is not democracy expressing itself—it is instability threatening the system.
Helping Israelis is solidarity.
Helping Iranians is an intervention.
Helping Palestinians is controversial.
Language does the sorting before policy ever does.
The Strategic Empathy Calculator
Western foreign policy relies on a complex algorithm to determine how much empathy is appropriate in any given situation. Factors include:
• Is the country an ally?
• Does it sit on resources?
• Can it be bombed without consequences?
• Will supporting someone offend someone important?
• Can this be framed as “defense”?
Israel scores high. Iran scores poorly. Gaza does not appear in the system at all; it exists in a separate file labeled Security Concerns.
Thus, protests are not evaluated on moral grounds but on strategic usefulness.
Freedom is not denied. It is prioritized.
Air Support as a Moral Metaphor
Let us be clear: no one actually says protesters deserve bombs. That would sound bad. Instead, air power is discussed as:
• “Maintaining regional stability.”
• “Deterrence”
• “Ensuring security”
• “Sending a message.”
Bombs are not violence; they are communication tools.
When Israel is involved, air support is framed as unfortunate but necessary—an act of tragic self-defense by a state that must always be understood, even when it is never questioned.
When Iran is involved, air support is framed as hypothetical but ever-present—like a loaded gun on the table of diplomacy. You don’t have to use it. Just let it sit there, gleaming.
In both cases, the message is clear: freedom is acceptable, but only within approved parameters.
The Anti-Semitism Tripwire
At some point, a politically engaged activist asks the wrong question:
“Why does Israeli dissent receive immediate support, while Iranian dissent is treated as a geopolitical inconvenience?”
Suddenly, the room freezes.
The anti-Semitism tripwire has been triggered—not because the question is antisemitic, but because it is inconvenient.
The activist must now perform a ritual:
• Condemn antisemitism explicitly
• Reaffirm Israel’s right to exist
• Clarify that criticism is not hatred
• Apologize for tone
• Apologies for the timing
• Apologize for breathing
Meanwhile, Islamophobia remains a background setting, permanently enabled, never questioned, never named.
This is not about protecting Jewish people. It is about protecting power from comparison.
Colonialism With Better Branding
Western powers insist they are no longer colonial. Colonialism was crude. Colonialists wore pith helmets. Colonialism said the quiet part out loud.
Today, we have a rules-based order.
Occupation becomes “security.”
Resource extraction becomes a “partnership.”
Sanctions become “pressure.”
Bombing becomes “stability.”
Freedom is offered like a franchise: same logo, different rules depending on location.
If your country aligns with Western interests, your protests are heroic.
If your country resists, your protests are suspicious.
If your suffering is inconvenient, your protests are invisible.
Activism in the Age of Strategic Silence
Politically engaged activists are encouraged to care—but carefully.
Care too much about Iran, and you are accused of ulterior motives.
Care too much about Gaza, and you are accused of extremism.
Care too much about Israel, and you are applauded—provided you stop at protest and never cross into policy.
This produces a strange activism: loud where allowed, silent where needed, exhausted everywhere.
People march. People tweet. People argue with each other while governments continue doing exactly what they planned to do anyway.
Freedom, it turns out, does not trickle up.
So, Whose Protest Deserves Air Support?
The honest answer is: none of them.
Protests deserve listening, not bombing.
Dissent deserves protection, not missiles.
Human rights deserve consistency, not strategy.
But the satirical truth is harsher: air support is never about protesters. It is about interests. Protests are just useful backdrops—either for moral validation or for regime-change rhetoric.
Israel’s protesters validate democracy.
Iran’s protesters justify pressure.
Palestinians disrupt the narrative entirely.
And so they are managed, framed, minimized, or erased.
Closing Thought: Freedom Without a Flight Plan
If freedom requires jets, it is not freedom—it is dominance.
If solidarity requires permission, it is not solidarity—it is branding.
And if human rights must wait for strategic alignment, then they are not rights at all. They are incentives.
The real question, then, is not whose protest deserves air support—but why we have accepted a world where air support is even part of the conversation.
Until that changes, freedom will remain what it is today:
Universal in language.
Selective in practice.
And always, always strategic.