I expect Israel to have a better justification for killing a group of people than "they looked Palestinian." - that's genocidal. This is a high-profile example largely because it appears so unambiguous. Israel are going to need to present the evidence that this was justified, or it gets thrown on the pile of killings amounting to that genocide.
We have video footage of a bunch of civilians being targeted in a drone strike - until they're shown to be enemy combatants (not happening) this is evidence of a warcrime. Your logic could be used to justify nuking Tel Aviv - we can't know the entire population aren't enemy combatants, and it's not for us to prove or ask for proof, so stop worrying about it, Karen.
If you believe the IDF need to prove the killing was justified, why are you defending them not doing so, and if you believe this is a genocide, why do you deny that the killings that make up that genocide are unjustified (remembering that they literally haven't been justified)?
I'm pretty happy to change my tune on this instance if credible evidence is presented, but I'm also comfortable saying that I know that won't happen at this point.
I don't think calling me a Karen for opposing warcrimes and genocide is having the desired effect, but you do you, champ.