I said earlier why I thought the comparison was problematic: scale, aims and context.
The current conflict is horrific, no doubt, but the number of civilians who have died in the past 15 years of conflict is still less than the Nazis/Soviets might kill in a single day. These are two tiny states fighting, you can fit Gaza practically within the M25. It's not really comparable to the destruction caused by two of the biggest powers in the world.
Aims -- both the Nazis and Soviets wanted not just territory but to eliminate whole classes of people. The Nazis had elaborate categories to divide up populations into kill immediately, work to death, exploit economically, etc. By 1939 the Soviets had already murdered millions of people based on class and occupation (the Ukrainian kulaks, Red Army officers, etc.)
I don't dispute that extremists in Israel do want to eliminate the Palestinians and obviously the Israeli state is not showing any consideration for civilian deaths. But I don't think it's in the same league as the genocides conducted in WW2, Rwanda, Armenia, China, etc.
Finally the context -- as i said earlier, I really don't know why people want to compare Israeli behaviour to WW2 when it clearly resembles much more the colonial wars of old.
Even going by your bolded comments above -- is that not a good description of British colonial occupation? Why is that comparison not made more often?
I don't disagree that Israel has done these terrible things, but to be frank, these are all very common occurrences in modern warfare. The US and UK did many of the same things in Iraq. Russia did much worse in Chechnya. So we can compare everyone to the Nazis if you like, but I think it's more useful to be more specific. Israel is essentially a modern colonial state and comparing it to previous colonial wars I think gives a clearer picture of their scope and aims.