Their opponents are genuinely genocidal. The Hamas charter is/was obscenely specific about this - and it wasn't restricted to Israelis either. One notes their jaunt over the border was not notably picky about its victims, not notably concerned with the laws of war (which they hadn't bothered declaring) or the barest rudiments of human decency nor notably sated before they were forced back into their shithole.

Their non-Jewish neighbours didn't think it was worth opening their own closed borders to their Palestinian brothers.

They have a habit of lying about their casualty rates (and everything else) - by factors of at least 2000%.

The Israelis feed and water them. They could have stopped (or poisoned them.)

They couldn't be arsed returning their captives - which strikes me as the kind of expedient one might have considered if this really was a "genocide" - after all they could hardly be considered an effective dissuasive element plus it's purportedly a "genocide" anyway, what's the worst that could happen?

They responded to a respite in this "genocide" by dicking around with the terms of the ceasefire and attacking their purportedly merciless and implacable enemies instead.

And so on.

It wasn't a genocide, it was a (counter)massacre. Every nation has done this and this has been done to every nation. It wasn't even the worst example during it's own timeline (that'd probably be Nagorno-Karabakh.)

Now wipe the jism off your Azov Battalion Action Man, polish your jackboots and get back to your cubicle at Rotherham Social Services.