the full quote, which is actually quite accurate and succinct:

"Because of racism, that's the simple answer I would say. Racism, and uh, basically, desperately trying to defend a destructive deadly system, that systematically puts short term economic profit, and to maximize geopolitical power, over the well being of humans and the planet. And right now it's very very difficult to morally defend that, it is impossible, but still, they are desperately trying which is... absurd is not the word, but there are no words to describe it."

The correct word would be chauvinism: racism is chauvinism based on racial differences, but it could also be based on wealth or religion, on food preferences or anything arbitrary...

chauvinism is the root cause for all evil in the world

There are other factors. And they're all rooted in racism.

Even the corruption of things like AIPAC. It's racism weaponized via bribery and blackmail. I don't know what AIPAC is called in other countries and don't care. But I know it exists. And its all just racism.

There is no grey area here. There is no debate. There are no "buts" here. An illegal settler occupation is ethnically cleansing an indigenous population. There is good and evil. And the ones doing the slaughtering are evil. Categorically, ontologically, indisputably evil. Period.

I'm glad everyone is listening to her and not giving a shit about what you think

This is a naive way to look at a news article.

She may have elaborated further but do you really think the press is going print an essay over a sound bite? Especially on social media?

Greta has made longer statements on this, why not look them up before thinking you know something you don't?

So if we ship the Palestinians to say Australia, and the Palestinians get support of money and weapons from a major superpower and then start to take land and resources from Australians and start to bomb them to dust. It will be ignored like how it is now?

Not directly, but by sending weapons etc to Ukraine, the US can basically wage war against Russia with no casualties of their own, while replacing the old stuff they send with new stuff, as well as justifying more military spending in the budget. For the right people, there's plenty of profits to be made.

Ukraine is one of the worlds bread baskets and critical to global infrastructure. There was very much money in helping Ukraine.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. . . . American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Dwight D Eisenhower's farewell address, 1961

There was absolutely money in Ukraine. When you read "billions of dollars in weapons sent", if Ukraine received the weapons who do you think received the billion dollars?

I would say “interests at large” rather than dollars.

Ukraine is military strategic interest (nobody in Europe wants to have Russia to randomly decide to start a war with an EU country)

In Middle East (with oil) is dollars

In Taiwan is military strategic interest

On the other side of the spectrum? Myanmar, Gaza, random African conflicts, etc

There's rare earth minerals.

Gaza has nothing other than beachfront real estate, but you got to remove them in order to take advantage of that.