Even if that were true (and we only have Israel’s word for that, again), you’re essentially suggesting that if say an armed gang of bank robbers used civilians as shields when armed Police arrive, the Police have every justification to open fire and shoot the armed gang and their human shields?
Your example doesn't fall into what the current Jus in bello covers. See Geneva Convention, Prot. I, Art. 52 ("nature, l͟o͟c͟a͟t͟i͟o͟n͟, purpose o͟r͟ u͟s͟e͟").
"3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used." Strange you didn't quote that bit.
For your and others benefit ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treat...
I think you you need to re-read and understand that which you quote.
Sorry? You’re actually trying to quite rules/justification as a defence for Israel? Anything in there about killing more journalist than in any 20th C war combined? My example is perfectly sound thanks.
You're incoherent, bye.
And you’re not, but your coherence is that of a zionist and a denier of both ethnic cleansing and genocide. So yes, bye.