“Nice Massacre — Here’s a State”
By any rational standard — and I use “rational” the way a hangman uses “mercy” — the decision by Australia, France, Britain, and Canada to recognize a Palestinian state in the aftermath of Hamas’s October 7 slaughter is the kind of grotesque moral inversion that would make Orwell spit and Thompson start loading the typewriter with live rounds.
October 7 wasn’t a “military operation.” It wasn’t “resistance.” It was a carnival of blood: over 1,200 innocent civilians butchered, burned, raped, and dragged into tunnels. Old women shot in their kitchens. Children executed in their beds. Partygoers hunted like animals. And now —nearly two years later — these same Western democracies, allegedly built on the rubble of fascism and genocide, have decided the appropriate diplomatic response is to hand the murderers the one thing they’ve been salivating over for decades: statehood.
It’s the foreign policy equivalent of a bank rewarding an armed robber with the deed to the vault and a catered lunch in the boardroom.
The Australians, led by a government that treats moral clarity like an endangered species, made the announcement with all the smug self-satisfaction of a cat bringing you a dead rat. They framed it as a step toward “peace.” Peace? Tell that to the families still scraping their loved ones’ DNA off the walls in southern Israel. Tell it to the hostages rotting in underground holes.
France, Britain, and Canada joined in, clutching their pearls and mumbling about “justice” while quietly making sure no one mentions that the October 7 death toll was the largest mass killing of Jews since the Holocaust. Apparently, historical memory now has the shelf life of a ripe banana.
And the message? It’s blinding in its simplicity: Kill enough civilians, and we’ll give you the trappings of legitimacy. Mass murder works — provided you’ve got a good PR firm and the right friends in the UN cafeteria.
Hunter S. Thompson would have recognized the stench immediately — the sweaty handshake between high-minded rhetoric and low, crawling cowardice. Orwell would have noted how the language has been weaponized: “self-determination” now means “you get to keep your rifles and your rocket launchers.” “Recognition” now means “the blood on your hands is a decorative motif.”
This isn’t peacemaking; it’s statecraft for the morally bankrupt. It’s appeasement, pure and simple — Munich with better catering and a more diverse press corps.
Meanwhile, in the real world, there are towns in Australia’s own backcountry still half-wrecked from storms, rural Canadians boiling water because their taps run brown, and French suburbs where the fire brigade responds to nightly riots. But sure — let’s pour diplomatic capital into rewarding the group whose charter still calls for the eradication of the Jewish people.
The hypocrisy would be laughable if it weren’t so soaked in blood. Imagine if, in the aftermath of 9/11, America had decided to recognize the Taliban’s “legitimate aspirations” and offer them a seat at the UN. Or if Britain had given the IRA a consulate in London right after the Birmingham pub bombings. It’s the same logic — the logic of the moral opportunist: “We can’t stop the killing, but we can look like we’re doing something important while it happens.”
In truth, these governments aren’t interested in solving the conflict. They’re interested in optics, in being able to stand on the world stage and say, “We acted.” Never mind that the action is indistinguishable from capitulation. Never mind that every terrorist in the world is watching and taking notes.
Australia, France, Britain, Canada — they’ve all just sent the same global telegram: “Violence works. Keep it up.” And when the next massacre comes — and it will — they’ll issue solemn statements of “condemnation” while quietly polishing the welcome plaque for the next blood-soaked head of state.
There’s a word for this kind of behavior. Cowardice. And it’s contagious.
