I mean, sure. Modern international law defines it as a war crime if you're not preventing your troops from raping as any kind of common occurrence, which is obviously how it should be defined, but is actually pretty recent that it works that way.
But yes I agree, we could probably charge the commanders with more if we could prove that they were explicitly approving of it. Honestly, thinking of taking half the Israeli cabinet and all of the Hamas leadership to the Hague just makes me sad because of how unlikely it is to happen. But yes that would be a great if that could happen and is obviously the right answer if you look at what either of them have done (and are still doing.)
My point was, it's not like the lack of proof that it was approved by the leadership makes it this kind of "gotcha" like OP's article makes it out to be, by cleverly adjusting the language to slip phrases like "does not stand up to scrutiny" in there without technically lying and trying to say that Hamas didn't rape lots and lots and lots of people. That's why I say it's a skillfully deceptive article; it's honestly pretty impressive how it's put together, in a sick sort of rape-apologist type of way.