Straw man argument - the video is one piece of evidence towards a corpus that paints all of this current Israeli government as genocidal.
And are you claiming Netanyahu doesn't have a political agenda?
Didn't Netanyahu fund Hamas to prop them up?
And that you're ignoring/dismissing what the ex-IDF intelligence agency's head says because he supposedly has a political agenda - while Netanyahu certainly has a political agenda, as well do many of his Ministers et al made public statements to that effect - supported now by their actions considered war crimes/crimes against humanity based on international law.
Netanyahu since a long time has stated he doesn't believe Palestinians deserve their own state - and his actions have been working towards making that nearly impossible now.
Israel government has even shown a map of Israel - where it covers and includes all of Palestine: if that isn't evidence of premeditated genocide, then what is showing such a map "from the river to the sea" [this is a map shown by Israel by the way, and that phrase comes from being used by Israel first] - what does or could that signify in your mind?
I doubt you even understand where in the line of evidence his interview would fit in the puzzle pieces, your mind seems very locked up/bound in fabricated weave of thin narrative lines.
And are you so certain Hamas has the stated goal of wiping "us" out?
Are you aware the part in the Hamas Charter, associated with it, claiming to say Hamas will "obliterate all Jews" is mistranslated?
You've already already lazily avoided enough of my argument points that I'm not going to waste my time with someone who's probably just a dishonest emotional "fast talker" on live video, if this is how you behave in writing.
You have a bunch of logical fallacies in your thinking - that bipolar / all-or-nothing thinking perhaps skewing your understanding the most, for starters, where genocide doesn't require immediately or successfully killing 100% of people.
And then you parrot boring rhetoric like "accusations are weird and baseless" to just add as filler, to make your argument look longer and probably to try to calm yourself down as a keyboard warrior for high emotions.
Claiming the interview with ex-IDF head saying if he was a Palestinian he'd be fight the Israelis for his freedom - he'd do anything - implies a lot.
I'd be happy to walk you through that but you don't seem open to new information, e.g. from his statement it can 100% be inferred that from his perspective at the very top of their intelligence agency - which gives him a lot of credibility, even if you claim to just want to dismiss him offhand, honest-rational-reasonable-unbiased people won't) - and that the Palestinians aren't a free people, that they are occupied and controlled-suppressed by this Israeli government.
How about you start addressing each of my points, not cherrypick, show that you can think through situations and information put forward to you - instead of regurgitating your propaganda narrative lines like that list you made?
Since you have experience doing documentaries, why don't you do a documentary for "the other side"? Gather all of the evidence, video clips, etc - and piecing them together, and then work through the cognitive dissonance you're clearly having - and outline in the highest detail possible the differences in the narratives?
Here's a starting point for you in the documentary, a thought exercise us: I'm going to give 55% of your land/properties/assets/money [yes, yours dakom] to the Palestinian refugees because of the allegedly accidental killing of 10,000s of civilians as compensation to give them new places to live. You agree to doing this, yes? Why or why not? Or will you avoid answering this question too because you'll infer and understand the point I am making you run into?