i cant be bothered to correct you every time. if you want to remain ignorant thats on you.. but lets just use the first link as an example
1. it was not a food aid site,
2. the crowds were not peacefully queuing up
3. crowds of thousands ascended on the trucks before they even got to a distribution site
4. isreali troops defending the trucks know hamas try ambush techniques via creating panic with the innocent palestinians to cause them to rush the supplies and become cannon fodder/human shields
1-Israeli forces kill 51 Palestinians waiting for flour at Gaza aid site, witnesses and rescuers say...More than 200 people were reportedly injured but we all believe random forum member over BBC
2-irrelevant, not justification for opening fire at civilians
3-irrelevant, not justification for opening fire at civilians
4-ahh i see Israel forces were just defending the trucks and the civilians driving them. Well, at least technically that's a justification, but then questions of proportionality, protecting civilians from harm, and minimization of civilian casualties under Geneva convention come into play, but i guess IDF don't really care about that document, right?
Almost all the casualties in Gaza in recent days have been linked to the delivery of aid rather than Israeli strikes on Hamas targets.
Surely must be just a coincidence, right
? Or wait has Hamas gotten into BBC too 
?We should all ignore what UNICEF, ICRC, ICC, and mass media reports, and just believe what you/Israel says, essentially just close our eyes at let Israel kill as many civilians in Gaza as they wish because you know...Hamas
even hamas admit "The Hamas-run civil defence agency said Israeli troops fired on crowds near the aid site"
the crowds were not just peacefully walking, they came with donkeys hauling trailers, they came with cars and vans .. which got treated not as people just wanting their few day rations as expected, but wanted to take more then each would have fairly been intended to carry
even the BBC link says
"It also said the desperate need for food was causing large crowds to gather along well-known transport routes, hoping to intercept and access humanitarian supplies while in transit."
now how do you expect a interception to occur of a moving truck.. obvious answer, attack the truck
2&3 relevant, because peaceful crowd queuing respectfully at aid site would have got food parcels
by rushing the trucks before it reached the site causes truck defending troops to fear it being a attack
4. your ignorance ignored the verbal warnings, the warning shots infront but not at civilians.. but when those warnings did not disperse the crowds and thousands continued ascending on the trucks, it escalates things
investigations from both sides admit that civilians were goaded into going to the main road used to deliver aid instead waiting at the destinations distribution site.. goaded by hamas telling thousands that there was only enough food for hundreds. goading then to overwhelm the trucks and take as much as they can carry
.. but let me guess you will just read more gaza propaganda to suggest isreal dont want to send supplies, and instead youll think isreal is stealing(food they sent in) to stop people getting it and so hamas have to lead civilian clans of attacks
anyway back to the topic at hand
high tech expensive weapons of precision were used in iran to take out critical infrastructure and personnel related to nuclear procurement/processing
however years of fighting hamas in gaza has lead to (the analogy of throwing cavemen rocks) of using cheap unsophisticated weapons.. but where isreal has shown clear examples of giving civilians warnings first to give them the time and option to move away from the danger to limit collateral damage
(something many hamas fangirls ignore)
Ahh, well glad you cleared it up, those details surely make all of the difference, and justify killing one, two, five, ten, twenty five, 51 and probably even 100 innocent lives and wounding couple hundred more. Hell, if we could find any kind of a weapon even a kitchen knife on one of them, probably up to a thousand women and children could be mowed down by Israel with such logic and everyone would be totally fine with that in the civilized world. Because when considering genocide, ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, and the proportionally of a military action, the most important thing that everyone should consider is how civil starving victims behaved, and if a warning was given before murdering them all.
Because we shouldn't concentrate on the amount of innocent children killed but what was that those kids to to provoke and leave no choice to ISD but to shoot at them, their parents, and grandparents with a tank.
Can you explain exactly what you mean by limiting collateral damage? That is, what makes collateral damage limited? What would make collateral damage not limited? Would you be able to provide an example of what would make collateral damage excessive? Is there even such simple concept as a disproportionate use of force in Israel, or literally anything goes in Gaza because, you know, Hamas?