We're a little off topic, but I'm happy to answer.
Intentionally targeting or killing civilians or civilian objects
Targeting was aimed with the best intelligence to hand at Hamas members and infrastructure built or used by Hamas. That civilians are standing or sleeping next to Hamas members when they are targeted is not an Israeli problem.
Torture, inhumane treatment, or biological experiments
Experiments? Bizarre suggestion. Inhumane treatment: sure, I'll accept that some Palestinians receive what they consider to be inhumane treatment. Torture - that one I don't get too worked up about. See Guantanamo Bay etc.
Taking hostages
Armies take prisoners, not hostages.
Rape and other forms of wartime sexual violence
By individuals, possibly. And should be punished, severely. As a policy? No, I don't accept that accusation.
Wanton destruction of cities, towns, or property not justified by military necessity
I don't accept that the destruction caused was not justified by military necessity.
When you're a combat soldier facing an enemy going in and out of any and all buildings, many of which were booby trapped to kill you, then the bar for the necessity of destroying the buildings in question to make your mission safer for you and your comrades - literally so you don't get killed - is very very very low. You, in your safe country thousands of miles away might choose to leave a building standing at the risk of my life - but I, the person close to that building, and at risk of being shot by someone in it, don't. Down comes the building, and I get to go home on foot and not in a body bag. Buildings can be rebuilt.
Attacking hospitals, medical personnel, or cultural/religious monuments
Hospitals and other infrastructure that are used by enemy combatants lose their protected status. If Hamas had stayed out of hospitals they'd still be standing.
Medical personnel: Israel used the best intelligence it had to target the precise Hamas members as accurately as possible literally to kill them - a legitimate goal. Having dropped a munition on a selected target, it makes no sense at all to allow medical personnel to try to save that target person's life, and it's perfectly proper to prevent anyone from doing so with further lethal force if necessary. Bluntly, if Israel wants you dead, it will not stand to let anyone get in the way of that outcome. That makes perfect sense to me.
I'll just add: if you're thinking this should be some kind of fair fight under Marquess of Queensbury rules, then you're mistaken. If I'm an Israeli infantry soldier engaged in fighting a Hamas cell that's using civilian buildings as infrastructure to fire on me and my platoon - I'm calling in close air support and down comes that building. I don't give a damn what you think.
Using prohibited weapons or starvation as a weapon of war
I don't accept that any country has a duty to provide food to its enemy during combat. Doubly so when that food is used to extort money to further those combat operations. I don't know what prohibited weapons you're referring to, but I don't believe Israel used any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
Rules about what are considered war crimes and what aren't were written in an era when nation states fought nation states, not when nation states fought ideological terror groups embedded inside a civilian population and having co-opted the machinery of government for terrorist ends. If you think what Israel has been doing to make itself safer from Hamas constitutes war crimes (as I said, I don't), then the problem is the definition of war crimes and that needs to be changed.