By Matt Underwood Trump’s legacy crumbles, Israelis call on U.S. President to end Gaza war, but it doesn’t seem like a straightforward request. Many find the premise itself questionable. The general consensus appears to be that Trump’s “legacy,” whatever that might be, isn’t something that’s actively crumbling, at least not in the context of this particular conflict. It’s more a matter of whether it ever truly existed as something solid, worthy of destruction. Some consider his legacy secured, perhaps even amplified by the very events unfolding. The strong sentiment is that the former president’s actions and character render him incapable of, or uninterested in, playing a constructive role in ending the war.
It seems that there is a widespread disbelief that Israelis even care about his legacy. The underlying assumption is that his motivations are purely self-serving, and that he’s driven by ego, a thirst for power, and the potential for personal gain. Some people point out that offering him money, or perhaps a golden trinket, might be a more effective approach than appealing to his sense of morality or international responsibility. The idea of him being a “moron” with “zero regard for anyone but himself” is mentioned repeatedly, suggesting a deep-seated cynicism about his ability to act altruistically.
The focus shifts from the idea of Trump’s legacy to the war itself. The frustration is palpable, with many believing the request to be misdirected. Some people are quick to highlight that Israelis should be focusing on pressuring their own government instead. They are reminded that the people in charge should be held accountable for the ongoing situation. The implication is that change must come from within, not through the intervention of an individual perceived as self-absorbed and lacking in credibility.
The notion of Trump’s potential involvement is often met with sarcasm or dismissiveness. Some individuals point out that the U.S. shouldn’t get involved, as they believe that would only serve to escalate the situation. One comment suggests the belief that the situation would worsen if the United States got involved to “ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.” There’s a sense of weariness, as if the whole scenario is a futile exercise. The war and the politics around it are viewed through a lens of cynicism.
The comments indicate a general disapproval of Trump and the suggestion that he can do anything positive. He is often described as a “pedophile billionaire,” “rapist,” “felon,” and someone who is “demented.” There is a sense that he is incapable of meaningful action, or that he is only motivated by the potential for self-enrichment and the acquisition of power. His personality is seen as a significant obstacle to any kind of positive outcome. Many believe that he only cares about remaining in power and making money.
The focus again returns to the concept of legacy. The phrase “What legacy?” is repeated, as if to question the very premise of the claim. The general sentiment is that his legacy is already tarnished beyond repair, consisting of “lies, bullshit, cons, and ripping off anything within arm’s reach.” Some people believe that his legacy is the end of democracy in America, a kakistocracy of lost credibility, destroyed institutions, and hurt needlessly inflicted. The idea that there was an “intact legacy to crumble” is questioned, suggesting that it was never something positive to begin with.
Some people point out that the focus should be on the actions of Hamas/Palestinians, arguing that they hold the key to ending the war through surrender and the return of hostages. In addition, people question why the Prime Minister of Israel has not done their bidding. The blame is often assigned to the people on the ground who are most directly involved, rather than to external figures.
The comments paint a picture of a complicated situation with a variety of views. There is clearly no consensus on whether Trump’s involvement could be beneficial or how the war should be resolved. It also brings up questions about the motivations of those involved and the role of different actors in the conflict. The core message is clear, that there is a profound lack of faith in the former president’s ability or willingness to act in a way that would bring about peace, and the focus should be on the immediate actors in the conflict.