There's an interesting article by Nato for the period 2008-14.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

There's plenty in there for all to pick and choose, so I'll just quote
the Executive Summary in full:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority
of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel
since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court
(ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain
points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.”
Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related
infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces
(IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.

The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on
an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of
Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. If the
IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties,
Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of
committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide
array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military
force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible
to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while
continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level
of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during
operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between
Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning
the outcomes of the operation.

KEY POINTS

 The use of human shields can be considered an example of ‘lawfare’ – i.e. the use of the legal system against an enemy by damaging or
delegitimising them, tying up their time or winning a public
relations victory.

 Even if a targeted strike may be justifable from a legal perspective,
first impressions frame the narrative. Public opinion tends to be
influenced more by images depicting the suffering of innocent
civilians than by well-thought-out legal arguments.

 National governments should be able to publicly justify their
position, and reveal their adversary’s use of civilians in combat. This
can only be accomplished by thoroughly documenting incidents, preparing supportive messages, and working across multiple channels to convey
those narratives.

 Priority should be given to information activities aimed at the very civilians who are used as human shields, in order to undermine the
adversary and convince civilians to actively or passively
refuse to serve as human shields. Such activities need to be coherent, consistent and coordinated.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)