Because one is a genocide and the other is a genocide?
Because one is a direct military response to a terrorist attack,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide
Continually spamming the same crap doesn't change the fact that the military action in Gaza is a direct response to a terrorist attack by the governing body of Gaza.
That alone makes it incomparable to things like the Holocaust, even if you want to claim it is genocide.
Regardless of if it is genocide or not, it is still incomparable.
And trying to compare them is just you belittling the holocaust and defending it.
Not surprising given how much you hate Jews.
Are the Jews rounding up Palestinians, taking them to camps and gassing them in showers? NO!
Even just look at some of the pathetic crap your useless website is appealing to (and no, insaneleftpedia is not unbiased by any stretch of the imagination, all it takes is looking at their policy on trans people to see that).
Blockading is not genocide.
In order for it to be genocide, you need to show intent. And that is incredibly difficult to show from acts.
Blockading, formally known as sieging is a valid military tactic to use against a target location.
This does not indicate genocidal intent. It might indicate that you don't value the people there, but that alone does not indicate genocide.
It is a valid military tactic to force the enemy to surrender or die.
Likewise, not caring about collateral damage does not indicate genocidal intent.
And that includes intentionally carrying out actions against military targets when they are in their homes and less defended rather than in more heavily defended military locations.
If Israel really wanted to wipe out the Palestinians, why are so many still alive?
It would be incredibly easy for them to go through and kill everyone they see, to destroy every aid camp and every location known to house any Palestinians. Yet they don't.
Compare that to Nazi Germany, where every Jew they could get their hands on was imprisoned or killed.
Even the pathetic quote you are appealing to, taken out of context, is entirely useless. Who are the human animals they are referring to?
Are they referring to all Palestinians, or just Hamas and their supporters who want to wipe out Israel?
If you would like some more comparisons, the intentional, wilful bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed somewhere between 140 000 and 200 000 Japanese civilians. (note: this is over twice the number of people killed from your alleged genocide.)
This was intentional, wilful destruction of a populated civilian area.
Does that mean the US committed genocide against Japan?
NO!
For the simple reason that it lacked the intent to wipe out the Japanese.
In countless medieval battles, locations were sieged. They were cut off from the outside, receiving no support from outside, so people inside could easily starve. Does that make it genocide?
NO!
For the simple reason that it lacked the intent to wipe out the inhabitants.
Even though it is intentionally causing famine and starvation, it is not genocide, because of the intent of the action.
Likewise, even if Israel completely cut off Gaza from the rest of the world, denying all supplies including aid; and carried out bombings without caring about collateral damage; that still doesn't make it genocide, no matter how many pathetic emotional appeals you want to make.
If you want it to be genocide, what you need is the vast majority of Gaza to rise up against Hamas and hand them over to Israel, and then have Israel continue.
While Israel is not rounding up everyone to kill, and Hamas is still in Gaza, then unless you can actually show intention to wipe out all Palestinians, it isn't genocide.