That is what you believe. But you must be aware of the minority opinion you hold, and how it counters opinion of experts, international humanitarian organizations, several governments, and a Saudi Prince. When the rest of the world talks about genocide, the Gaza genocide fits the definition.
The denial of the Gaza occupation is an even more extreme opinion of yours. Very few non-partisans, and even a diminishing number of Israeli institutions, deny that Gaza has been under continuous Israeli occupation since 1967. I’m not gonna try to convince you that you are wrong (you obviously are) but I just hope that you are aware of how fringe of an opinion you have here.
Instead I’m gonna do something different. And give you that the occupation was lifted in 2005 (and ignore that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are part of the state of Palestine; and the Israel still illegally occupies the Golan Heights from Syria and Lebanon). Now that constitutes almost 40 years of illegal occupation, over a land and people who many of which are still refugees from an ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948.
In 2005 the occupation ended, and was replaced by a seemingly colonial system where Israel controls 6 out of 7 border crossings fully (and the remaining one partially via Egypt), the population registry, the sea and the airspace, power and telecommunications infrastructure, maintains a no-go bufferzone inside the Palestinian territory where they regularly break up protests with live ammunition, where they regularly conduct air-strikes and military campaigns, etc. Surely you must realize the obligations of the occupier (sorry, blockader) here. That it isn’t just on the Palestinians to form a government and negotiate the end of the blockade, but primarily on Israel (as the party doing the blockade) to end it.
In international law this blockade is (correctly) called a manifestation of an ongoing occupation, and Israel has obligations as the occupier, obligations which they have neglected. But even if we give you that, the occupation ended in 2005, you must see that is not in the spirit of the law to replace the occupation with a different form of oppression, just so you can neglect your obligation. That is not how any legal framework works. You can’t just go around the law in this way.
EDIT: I also want to talk a little about your believe that just because the ICJ didn’t order a ceasefire in their initial preliminary ruling, that somehow it is ludicrous to entertain the plausibility of genocide after that. That is not the point of a preliminary ruling. The court also ordered Israel to protect Palestinians from genocide, to let in aid, etc. which Israel promptly violated. In April a second preliminary ruling ordered Israel to not invade Rafah, which was also almost immediately ignored by Israel. If you take the court at their word that Palestinians’ in Gaza’s rights to be protected from Genocide is at risk, and the following steps are needed to protect that right, and then Israel ignores and repeatedly violates those steps, surely you must at least suspect there might be a genocidal intent among some of Israel’s rulers, quite possibly a conspiracy to commit one even.