Right, so because you dislike the word genocide, even though one of the highest international courts in the world has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for war crimes, even though the ICJ is currently investigating Israel for genocide, even though Israel's actions in Gaza certainly seem to fit the legal definition of a genocide, you have decided that an article that uses the word genocide is "biased," thereby dismissing it and insulating yourself from any information that might conflict with your biases and teach you something.

If you're "not interested in justice," then you and your opinions are obviously of no value to people seeking justice, as the people in Palestine are. Again, this is why I feel like it's such a waste of time talking to you on topics like these.

You could have said you weren't interested in justice during the fight to end slavery, how seriously would you expect the abolitionists to take you? You could have said you weren't interested in justice during the civil rights movement, how seriously would you expect Martin Luther King to take you? You could have said you weren't interested in justice during the fight for gay marriage rights, how seriously would you have expected people like William E. Woods to take you?

Every positive social norm we have in the world today, every ounce of progress humanity has made towards equality, the right to be publicly gay in the streets, for example, they happened because people fought for them, and they fought because they believed in laws and justice and morality, all the principles you continually claim to disdain.

During every one of the fights, there was someone like you, arguing that the people fighting were being unrealistic and too idealistic and that they weren't being “pragmatic” enough, that the world would never change in the way they wanted it to. And fine, that's your right, but I won’t pretend it's not grotesque.