The *total* death toll in Gaza is appalling. A strong argument can be made that the invasion of Gaza was precisely what Hamas wanted: the disruption of the Israeli-Saudi peace process, the distraction from Israel's legitimate claim to be the victim of genocide on October 7th 2023, and a death toll so high as to facilitate the decades-long slur that the Jews are the new Nazis. (See 'Holocaust Inversion' and Deborah Lipstadt.)
However, in an ideal world, collateral damage wouldn't be misrepresented as genocide. A civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio of 3:1 or worse is typical of urban warfare. The ratio in Gaza is not especially heinous. It is the death toll that bothers people. However, the death toll does not tell us that the event is or is not a genocide. If 1,200 people are murdered for being Jewish, whether civilian or combatant, that is genocide. If 400 combatants are targeted and 800 civilians die as collateral damage, that is not genocide.
Some collateral damage is inevitable. To claim that the collateral damage is evidence of genocide, one must show that the collateral damage could have been avoided. ("Don't go in there in the first place" doesn't count: self-defense is a legitimate casus belli under Article 51(? I forget) of the UN Charter and the principle of jus ad bellum.) Given that the IDF has the power to murder the entire population of Gaza in a month or less, either (a) they're lazy or (b) they're not committing genocide. It's certainly likely that war crimes are occurring, and I'm sure some of them qualify as genocide. However, to misrepresent the invasion of Gaza as genocide is intellectually dishonest and factually incorrect.
