The emotive nature of the Syrian Airstrike vote on 2nd December 2015 inevitably attracted the attention of the British public, provoking widespread debate. In the wake of the Paris attacks, the devastating effect of ISIS’s terrorism was fresh in people’s minds, prompting a general feeling that a response was required to show Britain standing against terrorism – but whether or not this response should be airstrikes was a fiercely contested debate. People took to social media to voice their opinions, and many online newspapers supplied rolling coverage of the parliamentary debate.

But after the motion was passed, with a majority of 174, attention on the topic dwindled. It is all too easy for the British public to forget the impact that this vote had since we, unlike many Syrian civilians, do not have to deal with the consequences on a daily basis. Neither do the MPs who determined their fate. But in light of recent reports of civilian casualties at the hands of Russian and possibly US airstrikes, perhaps it is time to look past David Cameron’s excuses and verbiage regarding the accuracy of Britain’s Brimstone missiles, and instead recognise the impact that the collective intervention in Syria is having on innocent civilians.

Amnesty International has reported on the US-led coalition in Syria, noting violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses. The report also echoed the concerns of Western media regarding airstrikes delivered by the Russian Aerospace Force jets, reportedly killing around 600 civilians and striking 12 medical facilities.

While Britain has condemned Russian bombardment, it is impossible to be blame-free as long as we continue our involvement in this collective effort. Cameron regularly points to the enhanced precision of UK missiles in contrast to the Russian bombs, but the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has warned that ISIS fighters are living among civilians, meaning that avoiding civilian casualties will depend on extremely good intelligence. The civilian toll is also likely to rise as it becomes harder to find genuine ISIS targets.

There are also clear negative impacts of bombing Syrian oilfields. Taking out oil reserves may seem like a humane way of degrading ISIS’s finances and limiting their impact, but the fact that civilians rely on this oil to heat their homes and run their vehicles is largely ignored. Such impacts of airstrikes on ordinary civilians’ lives could prove disastrous in trying to win them over to the Western cause against terrorism.

This misunderstanding of the Syrian people seems to be an inherent problem for the coalition. We are led to believe by the British government that airstrikes are welcomed by Syrian civilians who fear the terrorism of ISIS. While this is true for some, it is not the entire picture. The citizen journalist group ‘Raqqa is being Slaughtered Silently’, based in the ISIS stronghold, has stated that “all the world is bombing Raqqa and the UK will not make any change.” Not only is there opposition to airstrikes among some Syrians, but there are many fights occurring at once, with terrorism not always being prioritised.

Citing British intelligence, Cameron claimed that there were 70,000 non-extremist Syrian fighters who could help fight ISIS – he failed to mention that these fighters are split into at least 100 different groups with various aims, many of which are preoccupied fighting the Syrian Army in a civil war. It is important to acknowledge that some Syrian citizens view Assad’s regime as more threatening than ISIS, posing a fundamental difficulty in getting these groups to prioritise the fight against terrorism.

The complexity of Middle Eastern politics suggests that airstrikes can only go so far in terms of defeating ISIS, and that a political solution is needed. Persuading Sunni armed groups to fight ISIS as well as the Assad regime may be the key to success, but this requires a great deal of local knowledge and political commitment. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition, presents an alternative to airstrikes, focussing on cutting off arms, oil sales and money to ISIS, and maintains that a political solution would be more effective than the current course of action.

The US and Russia, who are on opposing sides in the Syrian Civil War, have attempted to reach a political solution; a fragile ceasefire came into force on 27th February. Yet it excludes terrorist organisations. The attempts to diffuse the civil war in order to focus on the campaign against ISIS displays how terrorism is prioritised by the Western powers, perhaps because this has affected their people directly unlike the crimes of the Syrian Army. It is understandable that terrorism is viewed by Western powers as the greatest evil, but are airstrikes the right way to overcome it, especially given the number of civilian casualties? It is questionable that the lives of Syrian people should be valued less than those European victims of ISIS terrorist attacks.

Prior to the Syrian vote, the late Tony Benn’s speech against bombing Iraq in 1998 circulated the internet. Here, he spoke of his experiences of World War II and asked the chamber: “Aren’t Iraqis terrified? Don’t Arab and Iraqi women weep when their children die? Does bombing strengthen their determination?” These questions still resonate today, but this time with regards to the Syrian people.

It is important to bear in mind that occasional news reports on civilian casualties are a momentary reminder for us, but a constant trauma for them.