"You did no such thing. You failed to show any historical or explicit reason that the bombardment of infrastructure has ever been viewed as collective punishment, rather than a standard practice of war."

Right. I guess that pointing out the actual Articles in the Geneva Convention that forbid it isn't an explict reason. Just because you want to insist on your offbeat and self-serving interpretation, that's not my problem. Much like your "standard practice of war" rhetoric, which is interesting from a pyschological perspective, but not much else. It's amazing how your justfication hinges on such an obvious distortion. Israel is not "at war" in any meaningful sense with the Palestinians they have under their control. For example, the full Palestinian Parliment can't even meet except by videoconference because Israel doesn't allow the representatives to travel between Gaza and the West Bank and you want to talk this "at war" stuff. How are you "at war" with somebody whom you occupy and can control how and under what circumstances their government meets? It's just ridiculous.

If you want to continue to insist on believing that bombing the infastructure of a city and leaving all the citizens without a main power source and major roadways and transportation in response to a soldier being captured is not collective punishment, that's up to you. Especially if those citizens live under the occupation of the country doing the bombing. I wonder what would be collective punishment in your view. But, you really need to stop saying that international law supports your opinion. It doesn't. Just because you call something a war doesn't mean it is and doesn't provide the basis for you to tailor international law to your opinion.

"You referenced Articles 32 and 33 of Geneva 4, but I note that you didn't quote them. I wonder why not? Maybe you thought everyone would be too lazy to read them and you'd get away with your bastardized interpretation.

Could it also be that you didn't quote them because article 33 forbids terrorism? As in, deliberately targeting civilians, as Hamas does?"

I didn't interpet or quote them. I simply stated where you could find the answer to your earlier whine for international law and I stated that they defined and prohibited collective punishment. Not surprsingly, you interpet my not directly quoting ANY part of it, as some sort of pro-Hamas stance.

"Do you really think that being occupied excuses the Palestinians to do whatever they want, including targeting civilians, refusing to wear uniforms or carry arms openly and thus distinguish themselves as soldiers, hiding military personnel in civilian areas, and calling for the extermination of Israel (it's also expressly forbidden in Hague 1 to announce that "No quarter will be given")?"

Neither side should be excused for harming civilians. Period. The Palestinans can do whatever they want? That's news to me. Of course the Israeli government would allow the Palestinians to establish regular military bases and an offical army and whatnot in-might-as-well-be-miltarily-occupied Gaza and still-fully-occupied-West Bank. Why, I'm sure if they just filled out an application and paid whatever fee, that would be that. It's very weird on how much your reasoning is based on ignoring who controls what in reality and pretending that there are simply two sides at war.

"You assert that this is a "bastardized interpretation" of the Geneva convention. Well, I'm still waiting to hear yours. All you've done is assert that I'm wrong without any evidence or logic to back you."

The law speaks for itself. That you have to create your "at war" illusion to even begin to distort the law speaks for itself as well. You want to apply your at war standard to this occupation, and despite your persistence, it doesn't work. It doesn't work in a regular "at war" scenario either. Ask some of the Serbian generals who are/were on trial in the Hague for among other things, destruction of property during war. Maybe they could use your sage legal advice - "But, But, we were at war!! when we bombed that bridge and destroyed that house".

"Okay, you dragged me into the occupation argument, which I avoided because I knew you were trying to shift ground and that you would sieze on that to start a completely different argument, so that people would gloss over your sloppy logic with respect to international law.

The Israelis had tanks and troops in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank, and were indeed an occupying force. Now they've pulled out the occupying troops, which is why the Gazan offensive is now described as an "incursion." I know you're smart enough not to deny that the IDF is no longer occupying the West Bank or Gaza, so now you're going to come up with some sort of fuzzy-headed logic for why it's still an occupation even though the troops are withdrawn.

Or maybe I give you too much credit and you'll claim that the IDF is still marching the streets of Palestine. Go ahead. Let's hear it."

Logic? You need to apologize to Logic for the insult. Why does evey internet yahoo think their hard-headed opinions are Logical in general and especially in cases when they clearly are not. Vanity is a subtle mistress I suppose. Pet peeve aside, of course you don't want to get into the occupation argument. That's not a surprise because it provides important context you wish to ignore. Anyway, I might be giving you too much credit if you choose to ignore that, although the IDF left Gaza before this current action, Israel still has effective control over Gaza in a myraid of ways. But to your point, I guess it does make some small difference if you take the soldiers/tanks out of my living room, and instead, use them to surround my house.