I've previously said no, and I still say no.
I've seen two arguments from those claiming Israel is committing genocide. One is based purely on the number of people killed. But genocide as a crime does not depend on numbers killed, and as I'll show below, if we want to take that (incorrect) line, the numbers show a comparatively weak effort.
The better argument, at least as far as being in line with the international legal definition of genocide, is that Israel wants to eliminate the Gazan Palestinians so it can take over Gaza (the reason often, although not always, given is that it has long wanted to exploit Gaxa's oil and natural gas reserves). This is a better argument because it brings intent to eliminate a people into the argument, which is part of the legal genocide definition (vast numbers of incidental killings, or even purposeful targeting of civilian populations - as with strategic bombing in WWII - are not genocide if they are not part of a plan to eliminate a people).
But this argument has substantial problems. First, there is no evidence for the claim of an intent to eliminate a people. It is speculation. Those who claim it may argue that it is obviously true, but that doesn't fly in either serious discussion or the rule of law.
Second Israel is clearly not trying to eliminate Palestinians as a people. They are not rounding up Israeli Palestinians - and genocidal efforts don't tend to leave the folks closest at hand untouched - nor are they ramping up efforts against West Bank Palestinians. There are no death camps or death squads, no orchestrated rampages against Palestinians wherever they are reachable.
There is also the reality that Israel tends to announce where it's bombing and to encourage people to leave. While it is not as scrupulous about this as its staunchest defenders claim, it is nonetheless very unusual in the annals of warfare to do this at all, and signals an effort to reduce, if not minimize, civilian casualties rather than maximize them.
At most - and this would itself be a war crime if true, so if it's the case it's not nothing - Israel is committing an ethnic cleansing of a limited region. Even that would be hard to prove as a matter of intent, although - depending on how matters progress - it might potentially become provable as an accomplished fact. But that would require Israel to once again let settlers into Gaza, a potentiality for which there currently is no evidence.
So I see no strong argument for genocide.
But if we want to focus primarily on the number of deaths - if we want to say, "legal quibbling be damned, they're killing people" (which, generally speaking, is not a terrible perspective, it's just in how it's applied) - the reality is that in comparative perspective, the numbers are underwhelming.
The war has been going on for about 7 months. For convenience let's call it half a year, and use half-years as our unit of comparison. In that time, Israel has killed about 35,000 people.
The Rwandan genocide killed between 500,000 and 800,000 in about three months (half a half-year), or a rate of 1 million to 1.6 million per half year. That's 28 to 45 times the killing rate in Gaza.
The Armenian genocide lasted about 3 years (6 half-years) and killed between 600,000 and 1.5 million people. That's 100,000 to 250,000 per half-year, or 3 to 7 times the rate of deaths in Palestine.
The Holocaust lasted around 4 years, or 8 half-years. It killed 6 million Jews, or about 750,000 per half year, 21x the kill rate in Gaza (and even more if we include the other victims of the Nazis' extermination camps).
So Israel is not killing at a particularly high rate.
On the other hand, that comparatively low rate is not in itself proof of non-genocide. It's comparable to (just slightly above) the rate of killing in Darfur, where around 200,000 people were killed by the Sudanese government between 2003 and 2005 (around 33,000 per half-year), and that event is generally considered a genocide.