Some collateral damage probably occurred on Oct 7, but I fail to see why this is relevant to the discussion. Said deaths could not have occurred without Hamas' bloody attack on civilians and the chaos it caused.
I believe the accusations of rape despite criticism of the NY Times article, even the UN, which is often critical and skeptical of Israel, agrees it happened. And even without this specific claim there was enough barbarity, cruelty, kidnapping, abuse, murder, and genocidal violence (Content warning: NSFL, very disturbing footage) on display that day that I don't think it would move the ethical needle much on Hamas.
any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Emphasis mine. Note that political groups like Hamas are not included among the protected classes, and that's what Israel has been clear they intend to destroy. Not Palestine/Palestinians, who are protected as a national group just as Israelis are. Meanwhile, Hamas has been clear about their own genocidal intentions. This is why I believe Oct 7 was an act of genocide, as defined above, and Israel's war on Hamas is not.
The Oct 7 attack was not just about taking civilian hostages, it was an attempt by Hamas to create a permanent state of war, and part of their strategy to destroy Israel/Jews as established via their original charter and statements from their leader, (citation above.)
I'm sure it's terrible to live in Gaza but that does not change the definition of genocide. Nor does your dislike of people who point out inaccurate definitions.