No, that’s not what genocide means. That’s an example of a genocide that was nearly completely successful by the time the Nazis were defeated. The entire point of creating a new legal definition was to stop something like that - genocide - ever happening again, to anyone. If it had been unique and unrepeatable in the sense captured by the legal definition, there would be no need for a legal definition. My quibble with your argument is that I’m fairly certain you haven’t bothered to do much research other than to find some easily googleable and very shallow material (which has a proper hinterland and scholarship you are clearly totally unfamiliar with) that backs up your very many assertions that you have made here. that boil down to: it is essentially ok and necessary to kill thousands of Palestinians because, variously, it happened to us and it was worse, it can’t be genocide because genocide happened to us and they aren’t really a people, in any case it was empty of a real people until we rocked up and started making the desert bloom, they are all dangerous. And you know some Israelis and are therefore an expert.