To answer the Q narrowly, genocide is probably not the right term, even Albanese, the "UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory", (who otherwise made some questionable remarks) called such an attempt just "ethnic cleansing".
BTW, three courts were happy to quote each other that ethnic cleansing is not necessarily genocide:
As the ICTY has observed, while 'there are obvious similarities between a genocidal policy and the policy commonly known as "ethnic cleansing"' (Krstić, IT-98-33-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 562), yet '[a] clear distinction must be drawn between physical destruction and mere dissolution of a group. The expulsion of a group or part of a group does not in itself suffice for genocide.' ..."
— ECHR quoting the ICJ.
OTOH some scathing critics of this Israeli counter-attack have called the whole operation genocide, but in this they include killings that result as part of the military campaign. Whether their assessment is (remotely) reasonable I won't address here because it's far from your original Q.
As for the more strict legal terminology to apply to such events, this actually has evolved a bit from "crime of deportation" (yeah, one would not consider deportation a crime in most circumstance, but it was the word used in some early international instruments, albeit prefixed with "crime of") to "deportation or forcible transfer of population".
Prior to the coming into force of the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, international criminal law sometimes did not distinguish between the crime of deportation, defined as "the forced removal of people from one country to another," and the crime of forced population transfer, defined as the "compulsory movement of people from one area to another within the same State." Deportation has been recognized as a crime against humanity in each of the major international criminal instruments prior to the ICC, including the Nuremberg Charter, the Tokyo Charter, the Allied Control Council Law No. 10, and the statutes of the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The long-standing definition of "deportation" as a crime against humanity included the crime of forced population transfer within a state's borders.
The Statute of the ICC, which came into force on July 1, 2002, includes among its definition of crimes against humanity "deportation or forcible transfer of population." According to one commentator, forcible transfer of population was specifically included "to make it expressly clear that transfers of populations within a State's borders were also covered." The crime of forcible transfer of population includes "the full range of coercive pressures on people to flee their homes, including death threats, destruction of their homes, and other acts of persecution, such as depriving members of a group of employment, denying them access to schools, and forcing them to wear a symbol of their religious identity."
In order to be recognized as a crime against humanity under the requirements put forth by the ICC, the forced transfer of population also must be committed as "part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack." The "attack" does not necessarily need to be a military attack as defined under international humanitarian law, and "need not even involve military forces or armed hostilities, or any violent force at all." In the landmark Akayesu judgment, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda defined "attack" to encompass the forced transfer practices used by Iraq and described in this report, stating:
An attack may also be nonviolent in nature, like imposing a system of apartheid, which is declared a crime against humanity [by the] Apartheid Convention of 1973, or exerting pressure on the population to act in a particular manner, may come under the purview of an attack, if orchestrated on a massive scale or in a systematic manner.
Slightly interesting perhaps, the Allied Control Council Law No. 10 defined "ill treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose, of civilian population from occupied territory" as a war crime rather than a "crime against humanity", although that law also included deportation in the latter category as "deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts
committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious
grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated". The Nuremberg Charter did pretty much the same. It seems only later on deportation was relegated exclusively to "crimes against humanity".
Wikipedia calls the 1979 events, in which Cambodians refugees were forced back from Thailand into Cambodia, the
"Dangrek genocide" because many were killed in the process, by Thai gunfire and Cambodian mines. So ultimate intent seems to have mattered little there in how the event was later called. OTOH it gives the alt name "the Preah Vihear pushback", so I guess not everyone uses the genocide term for that event. TBH searching either of these terms in Google Books returns a very small number of results (zero for the former--the term appears to come just from a paper--I can confirm it's somewhere in the body [p. 462], and I found one GB hit for the latter term), so one probably can't infer much from this.