You aren't making your case here.

It wouldn't have mattered how she voted on this bill to anyone that thinks she isn't far enough left, or left in the correct way, because that amendment wouldn't have eliminated all Israel weapons from the bill. As you know. Voted to stop sending some weapons to Israel? That's not enough, therefore she supports genocide. Didn't vote to stop sending some weapons to Israel? She supports genocide. It's 'heads I win, tails you lose'.

She knew that, in the end, the bill would get passed despite her nay vote.

Okay, she also knew that the amendment wouldn't get passed, so there's no harm in voting against it, right? You're applying two different standards of logic here. If you look at it through the lens of, "AOC wants to eliminate all military funding to Israel", then the votes are ideologically consistent; the first fails to meet the goal, so gets voted down, the second vote--the overall military appropriation--funds Israel, and so also gets voted down.

You're setting up an unfalsifiable argument, where there's no condition that would lead you to believe that she's opposed to the genocide in Palestine.

we're at a point where sadly even when you carefully explain it, with step by step instructions on why her vote was problematic, like you did right here, they either still act lost or still find ways to defend her vote.

Can you tell me which sentence in that statement clearly says, "I support sending weapons to Israel"? Or are you making a lot of inferences based on you a priori beliefs?

You're not proving your point.

Hope that helps.