The problem (as it almost always does) comes down to the definition of things.
What is “calling for my death and the deaths of every Jew”?
What is “protesting”?
What is “calling for genocide”?
When did these happen and what EXACTLY was said?
Are you referring to people saying “from the river to the sea”? Is saying those words equal to calling for genocide?
How about “turn Gaza into rubble”? How about “finish them”? Are those calls for genocide?
Personally, I would agree that if someone said “every Jew should be killed” and another person heard them say that and killed someone in response, the initial person should be held partially responsible.
If someone said, “Israel is an evil Zionist nation who is stealing the land of Palestinians.” and someone else goes out and kills someone in response, that is not the same thing.
I can appreciate the need for definition, but your standard of requiring a perfectly explicit statement is nonsense. There is no doubting that the ultimate mission of Hamas is the genocide of the Jewish people. If you support Hamas, you are supporting this goal. If you are tearing down posters of kidnapped Jewish children, you support Hamas and demonstrate your utter contempt for the lives of Jews. If you suggest in the slightest way that there was some justification for the October 7 attacks, you support Hamas. If you know that a cease-fire would help Hamas (besides supposedly saving innocent civilians) to continue murdering Jews, you support Hamas.
These are just a few of the common statements made by protestors at so-called “cease fire” rallies. All this is the same as if you would say anything in support of, or apologizing for, Nazi Germany after the gas chambers, the crematoria and the Einsatzgruppen became public knowledge. Facts and statements of intent can be fully established by the unavoidable implications of one’s actions and words.