Because it's a different argument to the one being made, and addressing seventeen things at once is how threads become unreadable.

But since you're asking: go up four comments and you'll find it already addressed there in some detail. Keep up.

>I think wholesale genocide of an entire population by the Israeli state is worse

would be worse, but wasn't contemplated nor attempted so contributes no weight to the balance.

"from the river to the sea" on the other hand is a statement of genocidal intent.

Most of what you say I don't disagree with. Israel's conduct since October 8th (the civilian death toll, the aid blockade, the flattening of hospitals) is legitimate to call out. The ICJ found the genocide claim plausible enough to issue binding provisional measures, which Israel then ignored [1]. That's not nothing.

But "wholesale genocide" and "the plan is obviously to drive them into the sea" are stronger claims than the evidence supports right now, and that matters a lot because the moment you overreach, everyone who wants to dismiss Palestinian suffering has a rhetorical exit. The ICJ's own careful language exists for a reason.

None of that touches the original argument anyway: that October 7th was not a "small blip." Israel's conduct after October 8th doesn't retroactively change what happened on October 7th. Both things are true simultaneously. That's the whole point I'm making.

[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/26/israel-not-complying-wor...

You do realize that there were live Israeli hostages Hamas held up until the last ceasefire?

Come off it, that's a technicality and everyone knows the meaning.

An uncharitable person would easily debunk this by making claims about the idea that 'because of israel they can't have a state to be civilian of' and then the topic gets super muddy because that's technically not true and we go around and around and around.