I don’t want to argue about genocide. I just want to honor Mahmoud.

The title of the article is itself casting doubt on the genocide. This article caters to a very specific audience that wants to feel bad about the people harmed while still supporting the forces that cause that harm and feeling morally secure. This is meant for the settler colonists feeling bad because of the oppression they cause without the call to stop enacting it, and in fact using third personing neutral language to obfuscate the connection netween their ideological actions and the genocidal acts it causes.

What would the value have been in uncritically sharing propaganda about feeling bad for the victims of Kristallnacht from a Nazi-supporting publication that downplayed its nature as a pogrom? Wouldn't its true function be to sheepdog the empathetic into not rejecting the Nazis?