I don't agree with everything you wrote in the article. I definitely agree that, assuming no more than a few percent of Gazans die, this is not a genocide. I definitely agree that stretching the meaning of genocide in the name of accusing Israel of the worst cheapens it, and is totally unfair to Israel.

Israel's intent seems to be: (1) to dismantle the Hamas infrastructure, (2) to rescue hostages, (3) to show Gazans that Hamas' actions have consequences. Some Israelis might be happy to ethnically cleanse Gazans from part or all of Gaza, which is also not genocide. Sorry but the death toll would have to be way higher, or Israel would have to enact a completely different set of culture eradication policies, for me to call it genocide.

Having said that, in WWII, the Nazis intended to kill half of all Polish people. The Croats intended to kill one-third of Serbs, expel one-third, and forcibly assimilate one third. These might not be attempts to eradicate an entire population, but they are attempts to thin the population enough to change the demographics for an ulterior motive. So they are attempts at genocide. I don't think you need to attempt to kill, sterilize, or assimilate 100%, for it to be genocide.