I already stated that unconditional support for Democratic nominees is not my position. I also already stated the circumstances under which I believe your vote can be effective when cast for a third party. I also never said to not vote based on your values and beliefs. I said that if you choose to not vote against the person who is least aligned with your values and beliefs, you're making it easier for them to win. The winner of the election will be one of the candidates on the ballot, whether they've earned your individual vote or not. And it's your only opportunity to pick which one of them it will be. Neither will align perfectly with your values and beliefs unless you yourself are running. Even with ranked choice voting. So you may as well take that opportunity to get as close to your values and beliefs as is possible given the choices.

Since you brought this up specifically, did a "no genocide" candidate win? Was there a "no genocide" candidate for president on the ballot in enough states to even be mathematically capable of winning enough EC votes? Not even likely to win but just mathematically able to? Did you then believe that Trump, who Netanyahu supported, would be better than Kamala on that issue? If you thought that were indistinguishable, were there any other issues besides that which mattered to you, for which there was a measurable difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates.

If you had an ounce of spine, then you would demand RCV, then you would say that you should only vote for those candidates who support it.

I have the spine to use my voice to strive for better rather than to silence myself in wait for perfect, because if I'm not helping to make the choice of who is in power, someone else will make it for me.