[flagged]
Look at satellite images of Gaza. Consider how people there actually live, in temporary tent cities with little access to food, clean water, and medical treatment. Consider also the extent of "accidental" civilian casualties -- with more deaths among Gazan women and children than among Hamas fighters. Then consider that these unarmed civilians are essentially stateless and should, by rights, be under Israel's protection.
How do you see them living in five years? Almost nothing is left standing in Gaza.
It's not (yet) an out-and-out war of extermination, but it is, emphatically, already a profound moral and humanitarian catastrophe -- and a stain upon the soul of the Western nations who are standing by to watch it unfold.
Depends mostly on how they react, I think. How would Germany have looked in 1950 if it hadn't surrendered but instead transitioned into a partisan war against occupying Allied forces?
Anyone who is militarily defeated and wants peace must eventually surrender and stop trying to wage war. Germany managed to do that in Europe and make peace, and not immediately try to rearm to try again like they did after WW1.
That's not a statement on what's happening in Gaza today, but on what happens in Gaza in 5 years. Had the Arab nations accepted their defeat 70 years ago, we'd be looking at a very different history.
This isn't a total either-or. It can be "not genocide" and still be wrong.
Now, if you want to make the argument that Hamas has put Israel in the position that they have to totally destroy Hamas, and Hamas has entwined itself among the civilian infrastructure to the point that massive civilian casualties are the only possible outcome, that might be a defensible argument. "Not actually a genocide", while technically correct, isn't going fly very well.