Again, it appears that you lack the skills necessary to comprehend what you are reading.
If something is permissible it is legal under that specific circumstance. The point of IHL is to protect civilians, that’s true, it also is meant to prohibit the abuse of civilians by belligerents — an example we can use here is human shielding.
“The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.” – GC IV 28.
The point here is to not permit a belligerent in a conflict to become immunized by utilizing the presence of civilians to commit acts harmful to the other belligerent party. It means in that circumstance it is legal to attack the place in which civilians are present. As always and with every attack, that’s subject to a proportionality assessment and ensuring you are still distinguishing belligerent from civilian.
What we try to avoid in this situation is the conduct of human shielding in its entirety and as a strategy in armed conflict. That doesn’t render all places void of protections, but it does provide us an understanding of when it is permissible, and thus legal, to conduct certain strikes.
What you’re trying to argue is that these strikes are illegal as a matter of law in totality. They’re not. There are specific conditions that exist to make the strikes legal and permissible. The question should be if those conditions are met. You seem to be incapable of understanding that distinction here.
By the way, when you want to discuss statutory interpretation, it’s probably best to not do that with someone who has quite literally codified some of these into statutory law.
You look like a fool.