Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one single criteria, another is the espression of intent, there are more. See, for example: By May 2024, the Israel Defense Forces had ordered about one million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah — the southernmost and last remaining relatively undamaged city of the Gaza Strip — to move to the beach area of the Mawasi, where there was little to no shelter. The army then proceeded to destroy much of Rafah, a feat…
"army ordered civilians to evacuate from warzone so it's genocide" is not as great argument as you think. if army had prevented civilians to leave city and then bombed it to the ground, you would have something to talk about.
It's one part of the greater case made by several Jewish holocaust and genocide scholars.
They each have the same general approach of having multiple criteria and going through weightings for / against each factor.
The argument I would make is that this is not some casual quick ill considered process that would conclude every war is a genocide and that all participants in WWII would be considered as committing genocide - as was asserted by the green account I was responding to.
To address your singular observation ... their argument isn't simply based on that single order, it's in conjunction with statements of intent and an entire body of orders.
If you're interested in replying to these arguments then a small amount of effort should find you points of contacts and names for the people advancing the assertion that the current Israeli administration is practicing genocide with respect to Gaza.
I'd suggest and urge you to read their arguments in full before doing so, I've merely quoted a short extract from an opinion piece written by a single person.
IIRC there's a weighty body of submissions put forward when presentations were made to the UN.