The trouble for these people is that politics has not been openly this way since the cold war because the position is untenable. A group that gets its power by pushing the doomsday clock is ultimately dependent on some counter force putting seconds back.

I understand what you're saying. But, I don't have any "liberal assumptions". The Gaza Holocaust has demonstrated that there really is no such thing as international law, because there's no enforcement against certain parties, because they are deemed too powerful to touch (US empire, essentially).

Note, that's not the world I like to see. It's just the world we have.

But pointing out the outright hypocrisy of certain parties actions, vis a vis international law, natural law, or even "what if we flipped the tables?", is always worthwhile (I hope). Even if it's just shouting into the wind

> Gaza Holocaust

There was only one Holocaust, the Shoah. Even if the Gaza events qualified as a genocide, a label that can be applied to many such events throughout time and place, that is still not a Holocaust.

Well if you're going to argue with words, there was one Holocaust but many holocausts:

> Extensive destruction of a group of animals or (especially) people; a large-scale massacre or slaughter.

However it's discussed if "Holocaust" is a good term to describe the Shoah:

> This use of the term has been criticised because it appears to imply that there was a voluntary religious purpose behind the Nazi actions

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/holocaust

I mean it's not nearly comparable to the Holocaust either in means or scale or intent or cause or any other dimension, and I reject these rhetorical games that try to get something labelled a certain way to achieve a persuasion outcome.

Well stated.