I feel like I can easily imagine how the guy might try and concoct a leading situation, but the end goal just comes back to heroic characters ultimately being like "We're not helping your nation do a genocide":

Basically a race of high elves wanting to have a homeland of their own, so they're leaving the Western nations of man to go live far to the South (Israel is just basically South of Europe), in lands their people occupied 3,000 years ago (modern Zionists most likely won't parrot Herzl's open call to colonize). The problem? The land already contains (apologies for what may seem racist; the point is this is how the DM might try and manufacture consent) goblins and orcs who've resided in these lands for the last 1,000 years. They need the players to basically wipe out the inhabitants or terrorize them into leaving so they can begin moving their people from the Western nations to this location. Also the surrounding nations are made up of orcs and goblins, and when this genocide kicks off, they attack and somehow they're the bad guys for trying to intervene in a genocide.

Also a council of lords in the Western nations decided all on their own that this land will go to the high elves, so clearly the land belongs to the high elves. All the races of men and the high elves from the Western nations are clearly the good guys here. Also there are other elves living in these Southern lands, but apparently despite being elves they're barbarians, so the high elves will have to teach them civilization and love of European Western nations of man's arts and music and how to eat like them (apparently European Zionists looked down on Arab Jews as being uncivilized/mentally inferior/barbaric because they wore flipflops, ate with their hands and had no idea or interest in European culture; because there's no escaping the horrific racism of colonialism). Also the enlightened races of men from the West committed a genocide against the high elves so clearly the races of the South owed them territory; it's just basic logic.

You might be right and I can't tell whether such performative tolerance (couldn't find a better antonym to bigotry) is better or worse than mere moral deficiency.