It is a slaughter. But Hamas can just surrender (along with PIJ, etc.).

Just plain surrender. Announce it loudly to everyone, through Al Jazeera etc., and surrender.

Then there will be no slaughter, will there?

To me, this is the clearest thought-experiment that suggests that it's not a genocide. (That Israel could be killing people literally 100x faster, if not 1000x, even without nuclear weapons, is also pretty compelling.)

Everything is consistent with Hamas saying, "In order to get a single one of us, you'll have to kill ten Palestinian civilians, including women and children," and Israel under Netanyahu replying, "If that's how it is, so be it."

I would make a different call. I think it is an egregiously wrong decision on multiple levels--bad for Jews, bad for Israel, really bad for Israelis in the IDF, absolutely terrible for Palestinian civilians, and bad for long-term removal of Hamas.

But they're very, very clear about it. If you mistake a resolve to eliminate Hamas as a political and military organization (with more than zero, but only slight, concern for civilian Palestinians) for an interest in eradicating Palestinian civilians, you're not going to understand or be able to offer any advice whatsoever on how to improve the situation.

Finally, Ghazi Hamad of Hamas, at least, endorsed the methods of October 7, wherein civilians were deliberately and disproportionately targeted (euphemistically dismissed as "complications on the ground"), and has said they'd do it over and over again until Israel is annihilated (https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-official-ghazi-hamad-we-will-repeat-october-seven-until-israel-annihilated-victims-everything-we-do-justified). It is hard to see how this doesn't constitute a call for genocide at least on par, if not far surpassing, anything said by Bibi or Bougie.