Is it still genocide, though?

The idea that the conquest is an act of genocide is based on the assumption that the ḥerem of the Canaanite nations is a command to kill people of a particular ethnicity (derived from Deut 7:2). The idea that the ḥerem is divine punishment for offenses against God is based on the assumption that the ḥerem of Israelite idolaters in Deuteronomy 13:15 (also Ex 22:20) is a command to carry out a death sentence in consequence for a particular crime. Both of these assumptions are false. ḥerem does not mean “destroy”; it means “remove from use.” Individual people who are not slaves (as enemies and idolaters are not) cannot be removed from use because they are not used. What is being removed from use (via subsequent destruction) is not people but rather the identity that those people use to define themselves. This is true in the case of the larger Canaanite national identities and also of smaller subcommunities within Israel.— The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, 179

<idle musing>
One reviewer, I forget who, pointed out that destruction of national identity is still by definition genocide. He has a very valid point (it was a he, that I remember). Just because you don't destroy the people, doesn't mean that you aren't conducting genocide—look at what Russia is doing in the Ukraine. Yes, they are killing, but far more importantly, they are trying to destroy Ukrainian identity, which is why they are taking young kids for "reeducation" in Russia—turning them into Russians, even though their genealogy is Ukrainian.

So, as I said the other day, I'm still mulling this over—and probably will be for a good long while. ḥerem is such a complicated idea that defies explanations.
</idle musing>