To your questions: No, no, and it doesn't. All I intended to point out there is that both Israel and the larger Muslim world are responsible for amping up the mutual ethnic division/hatred in what was 2,000 years ago a single culture (though so is imperialism from the Seleucids onward), but it seems some people can't help but read it as "Muslims are even worse than Jews" instead because I expressed some degree of support for Israel. Incidentally, the Atlantic article I quoted (which I'm going to repost, because it contains about 75% of my points:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ization-narrative-dangerous-and-false/675799/ -- at this point I think I should just have posted the link without comment) mentions this in the same way as well (if cautious to add that "this cannot be compared directly against each other", which I really should have added as well).
In general, nearly everyone who responded to me (with the exception of Divine Retribution) seems to argue that I said something entirely different from what I did. GatoDelFuego apparently thinks I wrote or meant "I'm on board with Israel bombing refugee camps". Obviously not. If my comment on Ukraine didn't indicate it, I would prefer if not a single shot were fired. The reason I included it was specifically to show I'm aware of Israel not being "the most moral army in the world".
Divine Retribution: You have a good point that we should not withhold judgment until a genocide is finished, and I'm sorry for phrasing it as though the total number of Palestinians killed couldn't possibly matter even if it was 200,000 or some such (when I reread it now, it does read that way). I should have said it differently, simply: 1% of the total population killed does not seem like an indicator of genocide yet IMHO, even if these were largely civilians (especially given the percentages of the undisputedly genocidal Nazi state... though their genocides also often happened after the military campaign, not during it; the war against the USSR is an exception) and the 2 million / >90% displaced worry me much more. An allegedly high proportion of civilians killed may be due to Israeli strategy rather than genocidal intent (aerial bombardment inherently kills more civilians than ground operations -- let's leave aside that it's hard to say who has correct numbers in this war), though you could well argue that this should be a reason to change said strategy. Again, I don't envy the people who make these sorts of decisions: if you send in ground troops instead, you're probably risking the death of proportionally more Israelis. "Should X more Israelis die so Y more Palestinians don't have to" is not exactly an easy question to answer.
EDIT: Dresden alone killed about 25,000 Germans. That was a single day of airstrikes on a city of decidedly less than 2 million inhabitants (treating the Gaza Strip as basically one single city is fair, I believe). And it was not genocide. I don't "gloss over" the death of 30,000 Palestinians, every one is one too many, but I do still think the apparent death toll is remarkably low given six months of (not uninterrupted) aerial bombardment.
I don't know how the Gazans (not even all Palestinians) are all that different from the WW2 Germans, TheMantyke. They voted a totalitarian dictatorship into power (probably not knowing entirely what that would entail) which started a war against a superior "Western" opponent it despises so much that it tries to ethnically cleanse them (or what else was Oct 7?). They may be less complicit in the actions of said dictatorship (who knows), it is certainly ridiculous to think they all supported it, but they are suffering all the same for it. Even so, the main reason I brought up WW2 at all was to point out that terrible civilian casualties (some sources claim 1.5 - 3 million out of 70 million Germans total -- yes, the number of military casualties is even higher, but this is still worse than the Israel-Hamas war at present) can occur in war without making the side inflicting them genocidal (which is not to say that you cannot criticize e.g. the bombing of Dresden as strategically senseless etc.). I could have brought up other wars, but this is simply the one I'm most familiar with. If comparing Hamas (not Palestinians as a whole) to the NSDAP was too much for you, I apologize, but at the same time I'm really not ready to retract it, either.
Oglemi: I think you very much missed that what I called "necessary" is the existence of a Jewish nation-state, not its war against Palestine (though admittedly I implied Hamas specifically was as bad as the Nazis... I stand by that, but I think by defending Neville Chamberlain over Churchill I also showed how "necessary" I think war is) and what I called "barbaric", a word I used not "throughout" but exactly twice, is the attack of Hamas on October 7 (and the Nazi government of Germany), not Gazans or Palestinians as a whole at all. If anything, by comparing them to Germans under Nazism I showed sympathy for them (inb4 I now get accused of "Nazi apologia". Consider that the Germans of Germany today might have been 30% or 70% Nazi if they had simply been born earlier; consider that they are not innately different from the Germans of 1932 or 1945, it is all education and environment. Yet no one doubts that Germans today are largely not notably more terrible people than anyone else, right?) That isn't "teetering on hate speech". I guess the streak of me being unable to make a single political post on any internet forum without it getting deleted continues.