Not at all. Firstly it was misleading and inaccurate to declare that Israel committed genocide. Israel did no such thing. Warfare against sworn enemies is definitely not genocide.
He said ethnic cleansing, not genocide in his last post...unless you're speaking of a previous post prior to the latest exchange that I didn't read (I haven't read everything, admittedly). Ethnic cleansing isn't a genocide but can include genocide.
Ethnic Cleansing - Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group, which is contrary to international law.
But there is no question that genocide was committed against Israel by the Nazis. This should have had an impact on Muslim Arabs in that they should have shown sympathy for the plight of the Jews, and the reason why they needed a homeland in Palestine.
So, what I typically do is try to find a similar situation to see if a proposed reasoning still remains true. The more recent that comes to mind is a few years ago there was persecution occurring in South America which precipitated refugees desiring to come into America. You know, all of that border drama stuff the USA was dealing with under Trump. Should we have given sympathy to the plight of those refugees and allowed them freely to create their own homeland in the USA?
Or a simpler example; let's say my family and I were being persecuted for any reason in my state, so I drive to wherever you live, find your house, and attempt to move in. You've been living in your home for a while, with a title deed (even though it was previously someone else's property). Whether through sale or forfeiture, you received the opportunity to establish a home there...but I just came with my family. Should you have sympathy for my plight and allow my family to move into your home?
Let's say my great great-great-grandparents lived in your home. Should you be at least willing to negotiate my current family living there?
Historically the land of Palestine never belonged to Muslim Arabs, but always to Israel (even under foreign rule). Arabs were simply occupiers who turned around and began to demand what never was theirs.
Again, does this reasoning remain true if we were to argue about European colonizers and their conquering of lands that weren't theirs? Do those who lost land and property have a right to receive it back? I mean, if we go back even further biblically the land was technically owned by the sons of Canaan until Ancient Israel conquered it and took it.
My point here is that the land, and all the land is the Almighty's and not any of ours and that He can give it and take it away from anyone. There were specific stipulations that Israel was to abide by to keep it that they failed to do...so The Almighty took the land away from them and gave it to another as He said He would. And no one gets to really dictate who it belongs to right now except for Him. We can only be witnesses of what's going on.
The Almighty was clear that until...until they turn to Messiah and say blessed is He, The Almighty would not give the land back to them. So we
must reason that if there are people who currently control the land claiming to be Israel that don't even believe in The Messiah...then they must be Gentiles pretending to be Israel and not actually Israel because The Almighty is not a liar, right?