Even if the numbers are true, that leaves Germany with 2x the proportion of civilian deaths.

What court? Presumably you're taking about the ICJ? It only stated that allegations of genocide is "plausible". The grandparent comment is about a human rights commission, not a court.

Also, the ICJ only has jurisdiction when states consent to its authority. And the UN security council can veto any decision. It's essentially a show court.

And again, people endlessly debate what is and isn't rape and murder. Judges and juries make the decision at the end of the day, and people still debate whether their decision was correct. If anything, drawing parallels to murder and rape only serve to highlight how subjective it is.

People absolutely do disagree and debate what is and is not rape, though. Legal definitions exist, but have loads of subjectivity. E.g. some argue that threatening to break up with a partner over lack of sex is coercion and thus rape.

The definition of genocide is absolutely up for debate. And even legal definition (presumably you mean UN definition) is highly subjective, too. Less than 1% of Palestinians have been killed since Oct 7. Germany saw 10% of its population killed in WW2. France lost 4% in WW1. Why the former is a genocide but not the latter two is a pretty big hole in the logic behind the allegations of genocide.

This is indeed a big obstacle to credibly calling the Israel-Palestine conflict a genocide. Germany lost ~10% of it's population in WW2. France lost 4% in WW1. Less than 1% of the Palestinian has been killed since Oct 7.

Heck, the US Revolutionary war saw the British perpetrated genocide against the Colonists if the military actions following Oct 7 count as a genocide.