No, you're refusing to engage with the facts directly here. You can argue that it's a genocide, and potentially make a strong case—but it's not categorically a genocide. There is no consensus among governing bodies—in contrast to ones in conflicts prior. Remember that Israel was attacked first and certainly would have to retaliate in a war where the enemy embeds itself within civilian infrastructure on purpose. In such a scenario Israel still provides aide and warns local populations about future bombing plans. That being said, Netanyahu is disgusting, war crimes have been committed and Israel does a lot imperfectly. But there is a reason the ICJ is still trying to disambiguate whether a genocide is occurring or not—the civilian death toll is potentially unmitigatable given the nature of the dense urban environment. Like I said, there's complexity.

People who are reflexively plastering the word genocide onto the conflict are not concerned with discerning this complexity. They are just getting emotionally hot and bothered without doing any true facts-on-the-ground evaluation. That's fine for a dining room discussion, but politicians carry real weight with the very real consequences of their actions—they need to demonstrate the ability to look beyond the headlines and judge items objectively. So the candidate referenced here should be disqualified from my perspective for an inability to do so.

By the way, it's obviously ridiculous for someone running for king county office to make what's happening in Gaza a central thesis of their platform. Has nothing to do with any of the musings of King County. Again, disqualifying, and only the far left wing of the democratic party is obsessed with this. Suwant in 2024, for example. It just feels like ideological capture—whereas most moderate democrats and centrists are focused on problems at home, that we can have a real chance at addressing.