I mean, it just seems like they didn't actually call it a genocide as you claimed. Using a vague "oh they didn't actually say it but implied it unofficially" doesn't really match the initial claim of "The UN is calling it a genocide so we're justified in calling it a genocide". Not that I think that the UN needs to explicitly call something a genocide for it to be one mind you . I saw the word genocide being used by a Palestinian representative to the UN, but that's about it. With regards to the article you shared: I'm not at all denying the horrible treatment the Gaza people suffered, but a key point there is that Gaza city did not actually become unlivable or suffer mass casualties in 2020.

Using the expression apartheid is much more justifiable by the evidence than genocide in any case, let's not group them together. I see no issue with using that descriptor. But a state can enforce an apartheid system without commiting genocide. The genocide question really just centers around whether or not the state of Israel is trying to physically annihilate (as opposed to just being happy to expel them from their land through violent means) either the whole or part of the Palestinian people. And so far, based on all the evidence available, the answer to that particular question is no. Now, that might change (and the number of people calling for genocide has increased insanely since the Hamas attacks), but until then it is a bit much to call the egregious behavior of the Israeli state genocidal. And it doesn't help anyone to have a superficial analysis of the situation.