No, I don't think he means that at all. I think he is saying, rather, that when Gaza is reduced to rubble and silence by the Israeli assault, when the Gazans are all either dead or driven from their lands, perhaps that horrible scene will finally be enough blood-letting for the hypocritical west (as he frames it).
I'd reply that there are many many millions in the west that disagree in the strongest terms possible with Israel's actions in Gaza. Our leaders, as so often, do not represent the diversity of opinion in the public they serve.
The thing is, if people really are upset by all the bloodletting, and want the regime pushing all this to go, do they support the actions of the Labour government who did exactly this in 2003 to a far worse regime? And it's not whataboutery, as that section of the left that's most vocal about Israel's bloodletting and wanting Netanyahu to go are also the most vocal about Blair doing exactly that to Saddam, using the same emotive rhetoric about Israel that's far more accurately used to describe Saddam.
And if they have changed over the years, and opposed Blair in 2003 but have changed since then for this rhetoric to chime so much more re: Israel, does this mean that they've thought about what happened in Iraq, and changed their views about that too? And if they weren't old enough to remember 2003, does this mean that they support what Blair did in Iraq, and wish that the same would happen with Israel?
I note that Red-Soldier has used the bad faith argument accusation, and wonder if they apply the same to me. Personally, I'd only accuse someone of using bad faith arguments if they're not prepared to ask of themselves the same question that they ask of others, or not being prepared to answer questions that they ask of others.