[...] and of course the richest edgelord in the world who doesn't even care to deny that he openly does nazi salutes at political events.
He clearly doesn't care about much and should probably have made that effort, though honestly I fail to see how this is more than an over-expressive hand-over-heart gesture. What connection would there be between Musk's antics and Nazi ideology anyway?
If you look at which country recognizes the
existence of Palestine, you'd be surprised to find out that most of the world already think they are separate, but this doesn't prevent what the United Nations has described many times as a genocide. But the countries that remain hellbent on not recognizing Palestine, you'll find with disturbing correlation, are the one who supply Israël with money and weapons the most. Also Israël is so reasonable in this state of affairs that they bombed part of Lebanon as well, attacking what is universally regarded as a sovereign country because "there might be some terrorists there". They threatened strikes against Jordan, Iran and even Egypt before the G7 threatened to withdraw funds and weapons, at which point Israël whined that doing so was antisemitic.
But there's no point of comparison. Hamas did some heinous shit and deserve to be punished for it. But the result of the punishment begets 1 in 60 palestinian killed and 1 in 5 in the state of starvation, all the while encouraged to go even further by the elected parliament of Israël that dabbled entirely into divine-ordained expansionism, something that is lauded so heavily by Trump he threatened to do the same to Canada, Greenland and the UK.
I am absolutely horrified by the loss of life and the inhuman conditions suffered by the people of Gaza and, to a lesser extent, Lebanon, but I think it is important to put things back into perspective here.
First of all, the qualification of Israel's actions as a genocide is highly controversial and emerges mostly from politicized groups rather than experts on the subject, such as historians, among which the consensus appears to be quite the opposite.
But most importantly, on the one side you have a powerful country that makes use of heavy retaliatory violence with little to no regard to collateral casualties, while on the other, you have a terrorist organization of religious fundamentalists that directly murders, rapes and kidnaps civilians as a primary target: how can one not come to the conclusion that, morally speaking, the latter is orders of magnitude worse?
It's great that we are more and more sensitive to collateral damage. After all, just 70 years ago in Europe, there wasn't much a debate: more than 67,000 civilians were killed by Allied bombings in France alone, and this number of dwarfed by the number of victims of the same bombings against Axis powers, with estimates in Germany and Japan alone ranging from 750k to 1.1M civilians. Dresden and Tokyo certainly remember. Just like the dead of Gaza, most were probably just innocent citizens who did not take part in the actions of the murderous regime that ruled their country at the time. The bottom line here is that there's no trivial way to deal with such problems, which raise a lot of ethical questions, and are made even harder when the regime in question uses civilian homes and infrastructure such as hospitals to shield their terrorist operations.
Now as for Lebanon, I don't think the situation can be summarized as "there might be some terrorists there". The country is half-ruled by another fundamentalist terrorist organization, literally a state within a state, which operates in complete impunity since it was allowed to remain the sole armed militia in the country after the end of the civil war. Hezbollah senior leadership was never convicted for the assassination of Rafic Hariri, for example. It doesn't help that the militia in question is mostly funded by a neighboring obscurantist regime that has oppressed and murdered its own people since it took power in 1979.
None of that is meant to excuse Israel's disregard for the loss of civilian life caused by their operations, but when one is criticized, I think it only makes sense to remind everyone what they're up against.
Also, if we are going with your argument that two people that hate each other should not share the same country, why are belgian people not committing massives acts of murder? Wallons and Flammands do not even share the same language and spend their respective time shitting on the other, yet they are allowed to coexist.
That's because Belgium was designed as a multi-ethnic state from its inception: in fact, it was designed as a buffer state between France and Germany. You'll find that in general, the only multi-ethnic or multicultural states that are not plagued by conflict are the ones that were designed as such by the peoples that populate it. I can't think of a single counterexample, whether it's the countries whose borders result from post-imperialism partitions or even developed countries such as Western European ones where recent mass immigration results in cultural tensions, particularism, violence and even acts of terrorism.
My point is that direct interventionism has already been tried and failed. Both in Afghanistan in 2001 and Irak in 2003. The situation always ended up worse after the US left. And it's not just the US : the interventions in Syria in 2011 and in the Sahel in 2015 also were failure to bring up peace, with pockets of terrorism always being more vile as a result. So I ask : on what grounds would you expect it to be different this time?
It is certainly hard to argue against that.
