Palestinian journalist held Israeli hostages in his home

[Igel]

16. It was a civilian apt.

No real or obvious military purpose.

It's probably where, if married, the man holding the Israelis as property to be traded for some payout would have housed his wife and kids. If not and he was there alone with the people taken hostage as trading tokens, it was surrounded by Palestinian human meat that was intended to be both camouflage and a shield. (Most of us prefer to use inanimate things as camo, and shields tends to be inanimate matter. But hey, colonialist Western values.)

An apt. in a civilian apt. building is "dual use" like an ambulance with Red Cross/Cresecent markings used by Hamas to move healthy fighters is "dual use" or using a UNWRA warehouse or school intended to warehouse food or teach 12-year-old refugees awaiting a return to the home they left in 1949 but which contains munitions is "dual use."

In a sense, the use by Hamas makes the apt. no longer civilian--but then you have the flip side of that argument, which is in the treaties governing how to conduct warfare legally: The presence of a military usage of a civilian facility makes the facility a military target, subject to proportionality (which is *not* well defined).

So in a very real sense you're absolutely right--it was a military building, and therefore a proper military target. We're basically upset because Hamas decided to let civilians seek housing in a military target, I guess.

I'd cede the "civilian" argument because then, at least, the IDF attacked a civilian target--not a Hamas military base.