Moving civilians out of combat areas is amongst the most effective techniques of limiting civilian casualties.
More to the point, though? If Israel wanted to maximize civilian casualties, I can think of about 10 different ways they could do so.
Here I'm referring to a deliberate strategy by US policymakers to defeat the Vietcong via attrition. It resulted in famous "search and destroy" missions, a highly mobile style of warfare with frequent patrol, very often initiated by intensive artillery shelling of areas suspected to be harboring Vietcong combatants.
Often, commanders in the field were authorized to act according to their own without much intel oversight, additionally.
Israel, in contrast, does use substantially more intel oversight. It does move civilians out of the way, or at least attempts to, which is generally more effort than America made in Vietnam.
Both. Their control techniques appear more or less based on the same conceptual principles ours were in Iraq.
They have most of the same limitations, too. In both instances, bad intel appraisal happens, and they realize retrospectively that eh, mighta made a mistake. Of course, there's nothing that can undo the mistake. But there's also no way to eliminate human error completely with present technology.
www.timesofisrael.com
