The solution to this is very simple. Find a source which says this isn't genocide. If you can't, then the article can't say that it might not have been genocide. Do you think you're the only person who has ever wanted to write something that can't be supported by WP:RS? I can think of a hundred occassions when it has stopped me contributing something I consider blindingly obvious. But WP:RS is the only way to keep Wikipedia halfway honest.
To address your criticism of the article, I point out that governments, for obvious reasons, are reluctant to issue a direct order to commit genocide even if genocide is their aim. Even Hitler didn't issue a direct order to gas all of the Jews in Europe. That doesn't mean that the Holocaust wasn't genocide. They will also always claim that the genocide was quid pro quo, or an unavoidable part of a war they are committing. The Kosovo war is an excellent example of this.
But many people today seem to think genocide, brutal warfare, terror actions and large massacres are the same thing and can all be called "genocide" when you like. No way. During the Rwanda war, Madeleine Albright famously said that genocide wasn't being committed, but that acts of genocide were. How many massacres make a genocide? You seem to think it is obvious that this episode of massacres did not add up to genocide. But the point at which many massacres become genocide is, tragically, subjective.