I wasn't demanding an anal attachment to every rule of "civilized" warfare. But when a government makes an official policy out of killing non-combatants (however distasteful these people are) while at the same time refusing to strike where it would get them the most mileage, it's a prescription for perpetual misery.
But you can't go and attack a nation until you have support for the action. I think no matter what they do people will complain.
Support from whom? It's true that Washington might pull some funding if Israel goes after Arafat & Co., but seriously, how is all that funding really helping Israeli security? I suspect that what it really helps is Israeli bureaucracy, which is why they're so attached to it. Taking out the leadership of Fatah, Hamas, IJLP, PFLP, etc., is not something I think would create much of a financial burden.
And you're right, people will complain no matter what, so they might as well do the right thing to get this war over with as quickly as possible.
If we say we won' shoot X kind of people, they WILL USE them as shields.
I'm not doubting that, and I'm not denying that soldiers out in the field may have to make some unfortunate decisions in order to defend themselves, but this article is about punishment, not simple defense against potential attackers.