Why I think it's genocide
One of the many, many of Israel's documented actions during the last 6 months is the desecration/destruction of cemeteries. An example of the basic headlines is NYTimes (Satellite Imagery and Video Shows Some Gazan Cemeteries Razed by Israeli Forces), CNN (At least 16 cemeteries in Gaza have been desecrated by Israeli forces, satellite imagery and videos reveal) and AP (Israel military operation destroys a Gaza cemetery. Israel says Hamas used the site to hide a tunnel). There is even a Wikipedia article already about the practice.
Now if you believe the IDF that this was all inavoidable result of legitimate military operations (all 16) you should probably stop reading this post. Mind you, this would have to be the greatest of coincidences given that Israel built a museum of tolerance on a cemetery.
But let's stay you agree that this was done with malicious intent. I personally think Israel is committing genocide because of this action alone. Not legally but colloquially.
Taking a different example, because China is bulldozing Uighur cemeteries (see these<) I think it's reasonable to call that genocide, or at least is one of the constituents of genocide. And I just don't see why it would be different for Israel.
Now the g-word hasn't been used to describe China's actions universally, and there certainly hasn't been a lot of labelling specifically with respect to cemeteries. Then again, China's actions haven't been getting the coverage that they should. My point is that the term has been used though and it's not really considered outragous. If pro-PRC people started saying this constitutes bigotry or dilutes the definition of genocide, they would correctly be shown the proverbial door. Even going back to the UN's legal definition and talking about intent would probably be seen to be out of place in a public discussion (as opposed to a court like the ICJ).
I think this highlights that there is a public conception of genocide that's more of a colloquial concept (same as murder, war crimes and a host of other actions). It may not completely correspond with some official definition in international law but that's ok, it's the same for most other crimes. International law is there to serve the international community, not the other way around. And the colloquial idea that some actions constitute desecration of a people, such that we can call them genocidal, is apt.
So to me, even this "smaller" act which doesn't even include the deliberate killing of anyone can I think perfectly be described as genocide and is enough. "But wouldn't that mean that so many more attempts to desecrate the cultural life of a people should be seen as genocide?" Yes. To give another example, there are many indigenous groups around the world that describe their current treatment as genocide, even when it doesn't include the explicit killing of people. Are you also going to tell them that they need to get better educated in the letter of the law?
Of course once go beyond cemeteries, there's simply no comparison between the amount of evidence of crimes against humanity that Israel is committing now vs China in Xinjiang.