The logic of your argument implies that binationalism - a single state, belonging equally to both the Jewish and Palestinian nations - is an inherently genocidal position, and hence that proponents of binationalism are guilty of genocidal incitement.
However, there are Jewish Israeli intellectuals who promote binationalism - for example, the journalist Gideon Levy, and the academic Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin. By the logic of your argument, these Jewish intellectuals are guilty of inciting the genocide of their own people - which I think is a rather preposterous claim. Their critics argue that their plans, if ever actually implemented, would inevitably result in genocide in practice - they insist those critics are wrong. But, I don't think it really matters who is right. They don't intend genocide as a consequence of their proposals, so their proposals are not genocidal, whoever is right about what they'd lead to if put into practice. And nobody can really know the answer to that question, unless some day we actually try it.
But, if a binational one-state solution is not inherently genocidal - what makes a mononational one-state solution fundamentally different? In both cases, the claim of genocide is founded on what critics claim will be the practical results of the policy, not what the policy's proponents claim to expect as the outcome.
Some particular versions of a mononational one-state solution are genocidal, as are some proposed strategies to achieve one. But I'm not convinced the idea in itself (either in its Israeli or Palestinian version) necessarily is.
Name one Arab-majority country where Jews live openly as equal citizens. The suggestion that “freeing Palestine from the river to the sea” would just mean a secular multi-ethnic state where Jews life peacefully among an Arab majority is willful blindness.