Your version of the analogy implies equal damage on both sides. That is not the case, already Israel has killed way more than Hamas did. If you insist on making the first offense killing your family, it would be like killing my whole neighbourhood in response.

An eye for an eye retribution is all you understand? This isn't about equality. This is about removing the ability for a terrorist group to bring harm against a sovereign nation. If your neighborhood wants to harbor terrorists, then they're going to get blown the fuck up.

And then bombed both the routes to the "safe" place and the "safe" place itself, yes.

This is contested information. I've heard that Hamas was doing the bombings. Between the two sides, why would Israel warn civilians to evacuate, then bomb them and face international condemnation? Meanwhile, Hamas needs civilians as human shields so if the populace evacuates, Hamas loses their defense. Bombing their own citizens (which they're known to do) and blaming it on Israel benefits them. So between the two, one side majorly benefits and the other side not at all.

Since you misquoted the Geneva convention, let's fix that.

Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

Israel has justification and are not wantonly destroying property. They are attacking military targets. If it was wanton, they would destroy all of Gaza instead of evacuating the north.

ICRC (Geneva IV and revisions) Rule 129 The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.

Shocking how you always leave out the part that justifies what Israel is doing.

Attacks against civilian population?

Nope, Israel is attacking military targets. The civilians need to gtfo of the way. If they don't, that doesn't mean Israel is committing war crimes. They're justified to destroy military targets regardless. That's how war works. Here's another war crime: Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

Oops, you left that part out again.

Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

And again, you leave out the part that justifies Israel. You're intentionally lying to defame Israel. Sorry your feelings are hurt, but that doesn't mean Israel has to roll over and die.

The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

Israel isn't occupying Gaza, nor do they intend to. They're there to destroy Hamas and leave.

Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

Not sure about this one, but since you've lied about all the others, I'm not inclined to take your word for it. In fact, I'm more likely to believe you're wrong since you've been wrong about the others.