I think the case for denying a genocide on the Jews is indeed weak, however, the case if the genocide is a holocaust, I think that case is also weak.
For the following reasons
A. There was no plan to kill all Jews on the world
B. There was no fuhrer befehl to kill all the Jews
C. There was no budget to kill all the Jews
D. There are some documents which mentioned liquidating innocent Jews, but that is not a holocaust
E. There is no evidence for digging up 800.000 Jews in Treblinca on a small stroke of land, and burn them on rails above a fire. Both claims are impossible
F. If you accept that Jews transported to AR camps were liquidated (e.g. in Getto or other camps in Russia) that means only a part of the Jews and only in a time frame with ends by closing the AR camps were killed. That is no Holocaust
G. Jews survived in other camps, even in Auschwitz and even children and baby's. That also do not support an alleged holocaust
H.Hitler made an attachment on the Wannsee notes, that a final solution for the Jews had to wait after the war via Hans Lammers
I. In the beginning, the Germans tried to force the Jews to emigrate, e.g. to Palestina, by means of antisemitic laws and even by working together with zionists, also not supporting a plan to kill all the Jews
But I must acknowledge that denying a genocide on the Jews is almost impossible, however, we do not see mass graves supporting the claim of 2 million Jews shot in the east. So a lot is still hidden about how they died or even were killed .