Welcome to the Middle East. The Gulf War had 50x deaths on the other side. The repression of the IRGC against peaceful protesters had the same kind of imbalance. Its how governments assert dominance there.

Just look at the reaction of Iran's "leaders" to the USA's threat to attack them. They keep their narrative logic intact: we'll sink your ships, etc. These are fearless people who's power is derived from the appearance of power.

I find it incredible that these isolated comments, of which even the various UN-backed panels can only find a handful quoted without context, is the basis for an evidence for an intent of genocide.

Besides the fact that it's a very poor genocide that after the war has ended has 100,000 palestinians leave (mostly on medical or humanitarian grounds) out of 2M Gazans and when Israel is constantly accused of blocking them in.

Bear in mind that Israel is a democracy with proportional representation resulting in a coalition government so you are essentially accusing a the majority of the population of supporting genocidal intent based on a few out-of-context and unclear quotes from some individuals. For example Smotrich - a right wing nut IMO - party won only 5 seats out of 120 in the last election.

The PM, and the official statements overwhelmingly and repeatedly state that they were not targetting civilians, whilst also adding as has been proven that the entire strip was criss-crossed with tunnels (longer and more extensive than the London metro) with exits under schools and hospitals and that their attacks met the proportionaility test which is that the miltary advantage must be proportional to risk of civilians harmed. They said no strikes were indiscrimate, they were all against verified presence of hamas. You and I might find that ugly, vicious and can question if there was another way to fight Hamas, but illegal it aint.

Herzog's comments were taken widly out of context. It takes a very particular and pre-dermined POV to discount the actual Q&Q where there quote ignored the entire paragraph which gives it a different meaning and the very next question asked him to clarify the statement anout responsible and he immediately replied (all this within a couple of minutes of the same presser) his intent. As (e.g.) HuffPost reported: when a reporter asked Herzog to clarify whether he meant to say that since Gazans did not remove Hamas from power “that makes them, by implication, legitimate targets,” Herzog said, “No, I didn’t say that.”

Here's a transcipt of the presser:

  Journalist: "You spoke very passionately about you saying that Israel was not retaliating but
  targeting with regards to the operations in Gaza. But even President Biden, who spoke so personally
  and passionately with regard to what was happening in Israel, spoke about the importance of the laws
  of war. So, with that in mind, what can Israel do to alleviate the impact of this conflict on two
  million civilians, many of whom have nothing to do with Hamas?"

  President Isaac Herzog: "First of all, we have to understand there's a state, there's a state, in a
  way, that has built a machine of evil right at our doorstep. It's an entire nation out there that is
  responsible. It's not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved—it's absolutely not
  true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza
  in a coup d'état, murdering their family members who were in Fatah."

  Journalist: "I am sincerely sorry for what is happening in Israel right now, but I have been listening
  to your answers for the last few minutes and I am a little confused. On the one hand, you say that
  Israel follows international law in the Gaza Strip and that civilians are protected; you say you are
  very careful to prevent casualties. But at the same time, you seem to hold the people of Gaza
  responsible for not trying to remove Hamas, and therefore by implication, that makes them legitimate
  targets."

  President Isaac Herzog: "No, I did not say that. I did not say that and I want to make it clear. A
  question was raised about the separation of Hamas and civilians. I said that in their homes, there are
  missiles shooting at us. If you have a missile in your kitchen and you want to launch it at me, don't
  I have the right to defend myself? We have to defend ourselves; we have the full right to do so. Hamas
  carries full responsibility and accountability for the well-being of the hostages and for the
  situation they have brought upon Gaza."

  Journalist: "But my question is: Are civilians in Gaza held responsible for not destroying Hamas and
  therefore become legitimate targets?"

  President Isaac Herzog: "I repeat again: there is no excuse for murdering innocent civilians in any
  way, in any context. And believe me, Israel will operate and always operates according to the
  international rules."

Even in Halavi's case, he might be a right-wing nutter and meant what was reported but the head of army intelligence does not decide policy. And when you look at the original I don't think it would pass court of law. Israeli Channel 12 added the square brackets intent to "it doesn't matter now [if they] are children" but actually the original in hebrew was only "זה לא משנה עכשיו ילדים" [1] which could mean instead "it doesn't matter [to this argument the mention of] children" which is equally plausable in idiomatic Hebrew. Either way, his comments in full don't tick the boxes of genocidal intent.

[1] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNdd5QuoCFW/