Permit me to agree but to ask the obverse question. They are dealing with an enemy that routinely uses hospitals and dwellings for military purposes. Both are war crimes.

But... Could it be (not trying to take sides here for the sake of this though experiment, honest) "cheaper" in terms of civilian lives to use a few as shields? In other words, suppose taking an opposing officer's family hostage saves 100 lives on your side and 500 lives on their side. Ethically, which is the right decision? Kill one family to save many or kill many more soldiers and perhaps more civilians?

This is the decision Harry Truman had to make... I think.

That's a thorny ethical question, but it's not really relevant to what the IDF has apparently been doing. The article says they like to grab random nearby civilians and force them to do things like remove suspected IEDs and, literally, stand in front of Israeli soldiers in a firefight in hopes that the enemy will hesitate (they often don't). It's not just a few psychos; the IDF as a whole is claiming in court that they have a right to use random bystanders as ablative armor. That's unequivocally evil.