Shields, shields everywhere!!!

As you can probably tell, I am continuously fascinated by the logical tricks the people who support Israel's war in Gaza use to avoid any responsibility for civilian casualties. The definition of "human shield" is so elastic that anyone who ever fights back in a dense urban environment is now deemed responsible for the civilian deaths that the invaders may cause. Will the pro-war folks extend this logic to other conflicts? Or is it a special rule that only applies to whenever the IDF attacks and not anyone else?

It is especially weird because if you apply that reasoning everywhere, it effectively justifies Hamas' rocket attacks against Israel. I mean, when the entire adult male population is a military reservist (and a good chunk of the female population is also in the military), that means that most residences in Israel is the home of a "militant" and contains "caches of arms" which makes it a legitimate target. The Israeli military is deeply embedded in Israeli civilian society, which means that military sites are often located close to schools, hospitals, etc. So that would mean that the civilian casualties caused by rockets that hits any of those close-to-something-military places would be Israel's fault, rather than Hamas', right?

I'm guessing no one will buy that argument.