Wikipedia's job is not to draw conclusions, but it does have a responsibility to present the consensus of primary and secondary sources, give those views appropriate weight and avoid presenting a false balance (WP:FALSEBALANCE). It also has no requirement to present all statements in text as attributed to a specific source when they are not contentious.

Considering the UN and most academic sources - all ostensibly neutral and authoritative bodies - agree that there is a genocide in Gaza, I would say there is more than enough reason to present this point of view as the primary interpretation in the article (with dissent posed as opposition). Indeed, if you read the two previous RFCs (1, 2), the discussion is not about which POV should be presented as dominant, but whether the the lede sentence should be in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ("x said y") or the more authoritative WP:WIKIVOICE ("y"). To be clear, that means the question is whether there is enough contention such that each perspective needs attribution in the very first sentence of the article, rather than later on in the body.

I wasn't involved in either of these RFCs, but I was an active and somewhat prolific Wikipedia editor at one point, but to throw in my two cents I think that it was the right choice in this case to present it as a genocide in the lede without attribution. Stylistically, it is preferable to present the initial sentence(s) in the more factual wikivoice unless absolutely necessitated otherwise by significant credible contention. The alternate wordings read as weasel-y and, I think, presents a false balance about how strong the consensus is. As it currently stands, with the wikivoice lead, the following sentences attribute positions accurately without detracting from this impression.

The developing news part does complicate things quite a bit. From what I have seen of the discussion, it’s not that they intend to counteract the bias (though perhaps they do and are just hiding behind other arguments), but that they believe there is sufficient reliable sources calling it a genocide and insufficient reputable sources to contest it in the lede (instead saving it for later in the article).

As you say, the Nazis would certainly have contested the relevant genocide claims, but that’s exactly why the editors of Wikipedia have placed less weight on government sources. Whether this bar of “sufficient reliable sources” is in the right place is a separate matter, but these matters are resolved through the RFCs they have. Wales’ statement came directly after such an RFC was held looking to reopen the conversation that was just closed, seemingly in disregard of it. If this statement had been made as part of that RFC, then it probably would have been received more positively.