From the second source:
The Israeli authorities continue to destroy Palestinian homes and other structures in the OPT citing as grounds “lack of building permit” or “military necessity”.
I take it we can forget about destructions of homes built illegally and for military necessity since you were referring to the destructions of homes of innocent people for no reason.
Or did you mean that Israel should be criticised for destroying homes built without permits? Same thing is happening in other countries. Do you want to single out Israel without being an anti-Semite? Should be an interesting manoeuvre.
"Human Rights Watch" is known for its anti-Semitism, but let's look at the "source" anyway. (I really would have wished that you would have referred to normal news media reports rather than organisations with obvious agendas, but hey.)
The document says that Israel has stopped house demolitions because it was "ineffective". It does NOT say that those homes destroyed were the homes of innocent people, but of "alleged terrorists". (To give you an idea of what an "alleged terrorist" is, that's legal speak for the guy shooting at you. It is NOT a random Arab who might be a terrorist. "Alleged terrorist" is a polite term for someone who is currently murdering people or trying to murder people and who hasn't yet been put before a judge, which is difficult during the actual battle.)
Human Rights Watch even admit that there is still a legal battle about the demolition. That sounds quite different than your story, it really does.
So even the openly anti-Israel Human Rights Watch don't support your version of the story.
(As for the Fourth Geneva Convention, I don't know if it applies. As far as I know it only covers conflicts between parties that both accept the Geneva Conventions.)
There is also a very transparent lie in that document. It's even funny:
Therefore such demolitions violate article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits punishing someone for an offense that he or she had not personally committed, and forbids collective penalties.
Abu Dheim’s relatives have one week in which to appeal to the Ministry of Defense. If that fails, they are entitled to appeal to Israel’s Supreme Court, according to Israeli media reports.
If they can appeal the demolition it means that the demolition might not be legal according to Israeli law. But the statement before that claims that the demolition IS legal according to Israeli law.
One of the two statements must be wrong, they cannot be be true.
Incidentally, here is the real story:
It is definitely the story "Human Rights Watch" were talking about, but it sounds different before they added their flavour to it. There is no hint that this home doesn't really belong to the terrorist but to innocent people with little connection with him.
Anyway, what is it? Is Israel's destroying homes for no reason or is Israel destroying houses of terrorists in a process that people can appeal against?
Where is the evidence for your claim?