You saw something like it in the 1980s over the conflict over apartheid in South Africa, and that’s without the level of acute violence as there is in the Israel/Palestine conflict. You saw it around the US’s own Iraq War, with no draft prospect. In short, no, this is very clearly wrong.
The difference between the Israel/Palestine conflict and most other conflicts that people bring up with “why aren’t protestors attacking this” (including the inverted side of the Israel/Palestine conflict: “why aren’t people protesting against Hamas?”) is the combination of widespread US disapproval for Israeli action in the conflict [0] with substantial ongoing US military assistance for the Israel. People aren’t protesting Israel, they are protesting US policy in support of Israel while Israel acts in ways that are opposed. This is in common with both the anti-apartheid movement in the US (where, again, US government support for South Africa was the target) and the Iraq War protests (where the US was a direct party to the conflict), though while substantial opposition to US policy was involved in both cases, neither (at least at the beginning of substantial protest) had nearly the level of domestic opposition as exists to Israel’s actions in Gaza.
the US provides a lot of support and weapons to Turkey, which has committed one genocide in the past against Armenians and has been repressing the Kurds for decades. the US also provides weapons and support to Pakistan, which is an actual religious apartheid state and is involved in a messy conflict with India. China puts muslims in camps and these protestors happily use phones built in that country. none of these activist groups care about any of the conflicts mentioned above, which calls into question their true motivations.
You'd never see a any level of this **** for any conflict unless people are drafted