People fleeing a conflict isn't genocide. And no, the population did not decrease! You can literally look this up. "Moving 5 miles away" is not an overall group population decrease; here is a graph of the population of Israelis and Palestinians respectively: https://www.statista.com/chart/20645/palestine-and-israel-po...
As you can see, it's been up and to the right this whole time, for both groups.
Unless you think that India and Pakistan have been committing genocide against each other for the last 78 years, neither Israel nor Palestine have been committing genocide against each other for the past 77 years. They had a land dispute, which Israel agreed to split via the U.N. partition plan, and which the Palestinians rejected in favor of a war which they subsequently lost. Just like the current war, in which you passively claim they're "getting bombed," as if nothing had happened to trigger the war — in fact, the government of Gaza (Hamas) invaded Israel, killed over a thousand people and took hundreds of hostages, including civilians, sparking a war in which Gaza has now gotten bombed.
You have to look at the population of Palestinians in the 1948 region before and after. Towns are empty from the nakba.
People fleeing a genocide and being refused return is genocide. Don’t try to rephrase this is as “conflict”. Nor equate the history of other regions as equivalent to this one.
They were obviously not fleeing a genocide, since no genocide happened in 1948. The population graphs of Palestine make that extremely clear. In fact, many did not flee and are citizens of Israel today and even serve in the Knesset, and are referred to as "Israeli Arabs." Of the five acts defined as genocide, moving five miles away is not one of them.
And of course you can compare conflicts in history to each other. Why wouldn't you be able to? Literally the same thing happened with India and Pakistan, at almost exactly the same time, except that Pakistan agreed to the partition and didn't try to invade India. Many people were displaced, or fled, and there were even some border conflicts. But Pakistan and India both accepted partition in general in 1947, unlike the Palestinians who invaded Israel instead in 1948. In fact many more people were displaced or forced to move during the partition of British India into India and Pakistan: 15MM people, vs 900k during the 1948 war.
If you didn't consider that genocide, neither is the latter.
As you can see, it's been up and to the right this whole time, for both groups.
Unless you think that India and Pakistan have been committing genocide against each other for the last 78 years, neither Israel nor Palestine have been committing genocide against each other for the past 77 years. They had a land dispute, which Israel agreed to split via the U.N. partition plan, and which the Palestinians rejected in favor of a war which they subsequently lost. Just like the current war, in which you passively claim they're "getting bombed," as if nothing had happened to trigger the war — in fact, the government of Gaza (Hamas) invaded Israel, killed over a thousand people and took hundreds of hostages, including civilians, sparking a war in which Gaza has now gotten bombed.