You still haven't answered the question and are switching the goalpost. The genocidal intent is litigated using all the evidence, not just this piece of evidence. Israel telling people to move as a demonstration of their willingness to protect civilians is rendered meaningless if they decide to bomb where they go anyway. Their defense is that Hamas is everywhere, so no matter where they bomb, the civilians are human shields and they say they are not accountable. Yet, they still claim that they are protecting civilians by dropping leaflets and creating 'safe zones', despite bombing where they tell them to go and saying no where is safe. Don't you see the logical inconsistencies and circular logic here, which likely wont hold up in court.
Even in the instances of the IDF bombing places where the evidence, after the fact, convincingly demonstrate that there were no Hamas there, it's handwaved. 60 percent of residential buildings have been destroyed in Gaza, most of which cannot legitimately be argued to be used for military purposes unless any building or residence in Gaza is a legitimate target regardless of proximity. In addition, when they drop hundreds of bombs capable of killing people 3000 feet away, in areas they tell people to go to for safety, then they can't argue mitigation. A large portion of their bombs were not targeted either.
In my view, the case for total disregard for civilian life and/or the deliberate targeting of civilians is stronger than the opposite. Nearly five percent of the population in Gaza have either been killed, injured or are missing in only three months. Still not enough to make a genocide intent charge plausible on it's own, but when you add in all the evidence as posted earlier, it becomes more plausible stricly based on the Geneva convention and international law.
www.motherjones.com
