Human shield tactics are basically as old as permanent settlements, because forcing your enemy past their own ethical limits has always been a tactic of occasional effectiveness. Its basically how insurgencies work against technologically and numerically superior opponents, and this has been true for millennia.
And for just as long, there have been military and political leaders describing it as cowardly or unsporting. But again, the state of the art of military tactics is a catalog of what works, not what's ethical. The practice of war itself is, by and large, unethical. If it didn't work, they wouldn't keep doing it. Speaking entirely for myself, I don't ever want to be in the mental state to say "its ok for the SWAT team to shoot through the hostages; its their fault for going to a bank that could be robbed in the first place".
Absolutely, the party that provoked the war in the first place is in the wrong for the attack that provoked it. But that doesn't give the side prosecuting the war carte blanche to respond as brutally as they please.
I am only highlighting that deriding Hamas' current tactics as a cynical new low is pointedly ahistoric (even in the context of Palestine/Judea), and that its sort of hypocritical to only criticize the side using human shields, and not the side shooting at/through the human shields.