I think the question was poorly framed. I'm a baby boomer myself, but I would have trouble calling the attacks, absolute atrocities though they were, "genocidal". The word has been worked to death of late. Characterizing Hamas's attack as genocidal or not doesn't address its justification or lack of same.

Similarly as Israel demonstrates its dedication to the preservation of life by bombing the hell out of Gaza, opponents characterize that as "genocide" when it also is not. Israel's response might include atrocities & war crimes as the civilian death toll mounts, but it is not genocide.

I write this as a Zionist who believes in Israel, believes it only makes sense as a Jewish state with a Jewish majority. It is also very much a settler-colonial enterprise, without apology or regret. People are just going to have to learn to accept that. But it is also a very necessary enterprise.

Unfortunately it has also lost its way as Likud pursues policies identical to Hamas: perpetual conflict.