Honestly, I don't really want to get bogged down in a semantic argument over whether particular acts committed during a genocide could also technically be described as terrorism. Both concepts describe horrific things, and I don't think anyone benefits from pretending otherwise.

My objection is to conflating the two. A genocidal campaign can certainly contain acts that would also meet a definition of terrorism, but genocide is the more fundamental and consequential classification when the objective is the destruction of a people. Once you're talking about genocide, arguing over whether individual acts within that campaign should additionally be labeled "terrorism" feels almost beside the point.

I'm a firm believer that precision in language matters. That's exactly why I wouldn't describe Zionists committing genocide merely as "terrorists." If the conduct constitutes genocide, I think calling it terrorism actually does them a favor by framing the conduct primarily in terms of political violence or intimidation rather than the deliberate destruction of a protected population.

If you want to call particular acts within a genocidal campaign acts of terrorism, fine. I have no particular interest in fighting you over that distinction. They may well satisfy that description to some degree. But I don't see why I should concede that terrorism is somehow the appropriate overarching characterization when we're talking about genocide.

We're not required to enumerate every potentially applicable offense in order to accurately describe what is happening. If someone commits a dozen crimes simultaneously, identifying the most consequential crime doesn't mean we're denying that the other crimes occurred. Sometimes the additional label simply isn't relevant to the point being discussed.

So yes, terrorism and genocide can overlap. I just don't think terrorism is the important distinction once the conduct has crossed into genocide. Genocide is the thing that needs to remain front and center.