Not the same thing. The hostage takers in your example are only posing a danger to the hostages themselves. There is no outside harm caused by deciding not to act. Hamas on the other hand poses a real danger to Israel. Not counter attacking Hamas would result in attacks on Israeli citizens, so Israel has to act. Hamas is using the hospital as an unethical way of shielding itself from such counter attacks because they know Western war philosophy aims to minimize civilian casualties, so attacks on hospitals hurt Israels global support. However, by operating from within a hospital, Hamas are making the hospital a valid military target. Minimizing civilian casualties goes both ways. You don’t attack hospitals unless they are a valid military target and you don’t set up military operations inside hospitals so as to prevent them from becoming valid military targets.

Finally something sensible from this guy. Last week it was all big auto lobby nonsense.

Gaming is the only reason I still bother to install windows on desktop PCs.

You haven’t pooped in three days?

To everyone who is saying they use adblock and haven’t seen this yet: YouTube probably rolled this out to a smaller percentage of users first. It allows them to understand how this change impacts user behaviour, e.g. how many users comply and disable their adblocker, how many more users close YouTube than usual etc. Most tech companies do this type of analysis before releasing a high impact change to all users.