Sometimes cars crash, but per car there were only a handful of casualties.

Sometimes airplanes crash and per event there were many casualties, which makes it high profile.

While car crashes are often analyzed amateurishly, and little to no attempt is made in exact accounting of responsibilities, for traffic participants X,Y (or Z) and very seldom in the local road regulator / maintainers. If shared liability can't be proven because no one attempts listing all possible contributors, little to no feedback occurs.

When an airplane crashes, every potential contributing facet results in mandatory changes (perhaps this facet did or did not contribute, but we now realize this facet could have contributed now and hence could contribute to similar situations in the future, constantly improving safety (every 'needless' sharing of liability acts like a warning mechanism for relevant subsystems).

One could argue the road incidents should receive similar treatment, so that even if the bulk of responsibility ends up misplaced by the legal system, it still permits forcing feedback on all involved parties.

I think multimillion dollar missiles hitting a children's school with similar numbers of casualties as an airplane crash deserves the kind of treatment airplanes receive.

If that is the case, then we should treat all parties as potentially sharing liability:

The current administration for disbanding the organization that used to double check the targets.

But also the Iranian regime which re allocated a building on a military compound for housing of all possibilities, children, think of the statutes of Rome forbidding the use of human shields.

But also -and nobody wants to hear this- the international community which sets international law, both international peacetime laws as well as international rules of war: why don't we as an international community require every nation to maintain public signed whitelists of civilian facilities (like children-age schools). Quid pro quo: allegations by any nation A of non-civilian use of whitelisted sites declared purely civilian by nation C should force nation C to allow an international consortium, including nation A to inspect said site, to check its not being used as a human shield.

Perhaps the international community needs to look into the mirror and think how we could prevent these situations in the future given everything we know today, instead of just choosing your favorite scape goat in a specific story...

I believe boring solutions like contestable whitelists could prevent this:

either Iran would have preferred whitelisting the school long in advance according to such international law, but then tolerate inspections which may uncover say military use, or it would have kept the facility secret but under such international law it would have a hard time explaining how a children's school popped up out of nowhere on a targetted site without ever declaring it on the whitelist