All of these conflicts saw large (upwards of 30% of the population) killed.
> Israeli slaughter of Arabic people living in Gaza.
Even if we trust the Palestinian government's own estimates, the death toll in Gaza has been under 2% of the population.
One of these is an order of magnitude less than the others. Furthermore, it's an incredibly inconsistent application of the term. Did we invoke the word "genocide" in the Iran-Iraq conflict? In the Syrian civil war? In the American Civil War? Was Germany a victim of "genocide" at the hands of the Allies in WWII? All of these involved proportional loss of life greater than the conflict in Gaza. I, and most people, do not regard these as genocide.
The term "genocide" apparently has a vastly different thresholds when it involves Israel.
In one year, and only counting direct deaths. By your logic, Hitler wasn't a monster in the first year or two since the beginning of the Holocaust, since not that many people had died yet, right? We should have kept selling arms to Germany, since it wasn't yet a genocide, only 2% of the population had been killed.
The government of Israel is telling everyone exactly what they are planning to do - rid Gaza of Hamas and anyone supporting them, including people "supporting Hamas" by, say, using and paying for hospitals sponsored by Hamas (as in, the government of Gaza). They are telling everyone that they believe Palestinians are collectively responsible for October 7th, not just those who did the killing, not just those who provided logistics, but all those who stood by and did nothing to stop it. They are leveling virtually every piece of infrastructure in Gaza: every single hospital in Gaza has been bombed and destroyed, every university, every high-school, most schools and kindergartens, vast swaths of apartment blocks. American doctors have spoken about how many toddlers they have seen shot in the head or chest by IDF soldiers.
Sure, it's taking a while to kill 1.5 million people. But all indications, of all kinds, from actions, to words, to assassinating peace negotiatiors, UN forces, Red Cross forces, journalists, aid workers of all kinds: Israel is making its intentions for Gaza extremely clear, and the genocide is mounting every single day.
You truly have to not want to see it to say all of these things.
And your other examples are misguided. Civil wars completely blur the line between combatants and non-combatants, so it gets much harder to distinguish bloody battles from one-sided slaughter that can amount to genocide. Even so, Syria's president has definitely been accused of war crimes, even though his actions were never so systematic to amount to genocide. In the Iran-Iraq conflict, we were on the side carrying out the aggression, and access to information about how the war was going was not that easy; even so, nothing like the systematic wide scale wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure happened, though there were clear war crimes committed during that conflict, and many who cried out against them. Germany was the aggressor in WWII; but the (mutual) carpet bombing that leveled large parts of cities and killed civilians intentionally and indiscriminately could be called genocide by today's standards, and many look back with a critical eye at Allied actions towards the end of the war (even more so in Japan, with the fire bombing of Tokyo often being called an atrocity).
And except for WWII, none of these resulted in this many casualties in so short a time frame, not even close. Especially when you consider how one-sided the slaughter in Gaza is, with Israel having almost no losses whatsoever since their invasion started, at least not from Gaza.