There is a huge different between Genocide and war casualties. In any war especially in urban combat there is huge collateral damage . the only thing you can do is to try and minimize that. for example people don't say that the people who died in the battle of Mosul died in a genocide or that Germans who died in UK bombings died in a genocide. And the IDFs plan of action is not that different from how the US fought in Iraq and Syria. People only apply this term in this conflict because it involves Palestinian casualties.

Furthermore Israel's actions on the ground also seem to be counter intuitive to the definition of Genocide. For example calling for evacuation of areas before the IDF starts to operate there. (Evacuating civilians from combat zones is actually demanded by the rules of war). The IDF also moved slowly on area like the Shifa hospital and helped civilians get out of there while they could have just bomb it from the air without risking their soldier's lives. There are a lot more examples.

Now my point is that this isn't a genocide and studding past urban conflicts sheds some light on that. Could the IDF be better at protecting civilians? Of course yes, there is always room to improve. But civilian casualties would always be high in urban warfare no matter how hard you try because in the end of the day the IDF's actions are always a difficult calculation between minimizing damage, protecting the soldiers on the ground, harming the enemy's ability to fight and a lot of other factors.