Comment by viccis
No, my terms are correct.
The bailey is: "they are calling for the genocide of Jews!!!"
Once challenged, you will retreat to the more easily proven: "they are advocating for the return the land to the Palestinian people", as you just did there. I can promise you that no group of people needs to be allowed to occupy a previously settled region with violence in order to continue to exist. I've heard this argument from white nationalists who call for a white nation to similarly preserve their people from perceived threats, as well as heard it numerous times in African settler colonies (Rhodesia, South Africa, etc.) It's a standard ethnostate talking point, and none of us are fooled by it.
Yes now you've corrected the terms, in your previous comment you claimed the motte was calls for genocide. Regardless, I'm defending what you're calling the bailey as it's easily defensible based on observable current events.
Care to explain how Kristallnacht is in any way different from an intifada? They are literally the same thing, a disorganized mob raping, murdering and attacking innocent civilians. The Arabs have done two intifadas, both resulted in countless dead and injured Jews who were attacked solely for being "el-yahud" aka "yuden" aka Jews.
As I said above, there is no motte and bailey fallacy here. You're the one making false claims about harassment of hamas supporters.