I don't think if I were Israel I'd be hanging everything on the narrow definition of 'intent to destroy'. Legal loves a good definition, but they also love a good precedent to clarify those definitions. In this case, "in whole or in part".
Anyone care to guess how many people it took for Karim Khan to cite II(e) of the Genocide Convention vs Putin? 'Hundreds' of children, out of a population of 40 million (theoretical). If that's the new threshold 17000 dead women and children out of 2.2 million will certainly pass muster. That's a factor of, hmm, 680, roughly, on the Palestinian side of the ledger. And let's be frank here, at least any children taken by Russia are, well, still alive... Now, of course that's ICC rather than ICJ, but ICC is still an instrument of International Law, and recognised as such by the UN same as the ICJ, even if not officially a UN court.
Of course, I mostly just like the possibility of Karim's Khan and Britain's flagrant misuse of the ICC coming back to haunt them. Always nice to see someone corrupt hoist by their own Picard after all.
Intent to destroy is pretty much the sole obstacle otherwise. Take II(c) for example, with its clarification from the ICC ('s predecessor for Rwanda): "subjecting a group of people to a subsistence diet, systematic expulsion from homes and the reduction of essential medical services below minimum requirement". Sounds rather like Israel has been using that as a guideline, eh?