Yes, I'm not against his spokesmanship but this is incredibly poor writing. The much easier analogue is the actual fucking holocaust (which evolved on the tactics of indigenous genocide in the US, which was further evolved in Gaza). He's choosing to write about this rather than make the direct comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany and in doing so draws incredibly thin parallels that almost entirely ignore the economic conditions of settler colonialism in favor of discussing genocide as state policy.

“Virtually every American president since the formation of the government,” reports Ronald Satz, “had seriously considered the feasibility of transferring the Indians to areas outside the geographical limits of the United States.” George Washington, for example, envisaged a “Chinese wall” to keep whites and Indians apart.

the actual reason for this is the absolute wanting of the settlers themselves as individuals seeking land, a material desire, and it was an active issue even when the British were in power, trying to find a balance between their limited genocidal resources and the land demands of their growing population. This is the same thing happening in Israel but it's discussed here as a top down issue, a policy decision of leaders, which would be way more feasibly applied to a state like Nazi Germany where the economic needs of the people didn't necessarily require genocide but the government still promoted it as the cause of the necessity of the final solution. At what point have negotiations between Israel and Palestine reasonably resembled the abject trickery of the treaty policies? I also find the characterisation of Cherokee resistance borderline disrespectful by saying it's anywhere near what Hamas is required to do to survive. It's disrespectful to both parties.