Again, I'm curious as to why there are two standards operating here. What is it about the situation that leads to pronounce rules of conduct that apply to Hamas, but not to the IDF?
We are not using two standards. It's your side that wants that--not applying the Geneva Conventions to Hamas' actions.
The point is they are engaged in armed conflict even though they carry no arms themselves.
???!!!
Sorry, you've just got to explain that one to me...
They're doing recon in preparation for an attack. Recon troops are combatants even if they carry no weapons themselves. After all, consider the old adage that the most dangerous weapon a soldier carries is a radio.
It's not just employed by Hamas, but a member of a terrorist brigade.
They weren't members of a brigade. They were merely employees of Hamas, the government of Gaza, which Israel has declared to be a terrorist organisation. The article angelo posted makes reference to this, as did material you posted at the time.
Just because they were police doesn't mean they weren't also terrorists. Simple test: They show up on the membership lists of one of the terrorist groups, they're a terrorist.
Israel takes them for the purpose of getting them off the battlefield. The objective isn't exchanges and Israel doesn't like doing exchanges.
So despite both sides doing the same thing with the prisoners, it's only a war crime when Hamas does it, because of what they're thinking at the time?
Motivation is always a big part of whether something is acceptable.
Consider:
Execution/justifiable homicide/manslaughter/murder.
The only difference is why.