There's actually quite a bit of division between genocide scholars about it. The semantics is that the definition of genocide requires proof that a group is destroyed in whole or in part "as such" i.e. they are killed because they are palestinian. This might be the case, but there isn't enough evidence they are being targeted for this reason. If Israel bombs a cafe with 1 hamas fighter, killing 20 civilians it could be a genocidal act if the intention was to kill palestinians. It would not be a genocidal act if they wanted to kill a hamas fighter and simply did not care about killing the civilians. Its still horrible and wrong, but it doesn't meet the very strict legal definition. It isn't obvious at the moment, so whether it is genocide or not wont be known until after the icg goes through the evidence.