ISIS seems to have two ways of attacking. In Iraq and Syria, they recruited disaffected Muslims and integrated them into an occupying force that operates locally. Outside of Iraq and Syria, they do not have enough recruits to engage in occupation. They can only encourage terrorists acts. They do this through a combination of internet engagement (e.g. San Bernardino) and direct engagement with people who go to Iraq or Syria to train with them (Paris and Brussels).
I would guess that they haven't (yet) engaged with Muslims in Palestine to occupy territory. And the Israelis already are suspicious of Muslims in Israel. Muslims in Israel don't have the freedom of action that those in the USA and Europe have. This makes it difficult to engage in terrorist attacks.
It's even possible that there have been ISIS attacks in Israel but that they were insufficiently successful to be worth claiming. There is certainly enough conflict there that violent attacks might easily be explained without ISIS. Or ISIS hasn't been able to engage with disaffected Muslims in Israel because they have already joined other groups. Wikipedia lists Hamas as opposing ISIS.
You might also ask why they don't take the occupying forces from Iraq and Syria and go to Israel. The most likely reason is that the areas they occupy aren't that close to Israel. Syria doesn't have much of a border with Israel and Assad's forces are between ISIS and Israel. And of course, if they left their current territory, they might lose it. Perhaps things would change if they defeated Assad.