The Palestinians are the only people in the history of the world so far as I can tell who have systematically used their women and children as shields in war.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but wasn't this sort of thing fairly common during the Iran/Iraq war? And how, exactly, does being with your family count as "using women and children as shields"? That's like saying that George W. Bush is an immoral bastard for having Laura in the same house, and that housing the families of soldiers on army bases is an act of purest terrorist evil.
More to the point, does it make them any less dead? If assassination were impossible, then why the hell couldn't the Israeli army stage a SWAT-style invasion and arrest of the man in question, taking care to make safe his family? Not only would it have been a brilliant PR move (we're protecting his children even though he tries to use them against us) and shield Israel from criticism (we could have bombed those innocent people, but we don't believe in that sort of savagery), but if one wants to look at in a dispassionate fashion it ensures that any Israeli soldier or officer that was taken or killed in the execution of this order would be a shining beacon of civilization- an acknowledgement that Israel is willing to sacrifice its own soldiers in order to reassert its ethical and moral superiority. (This was the lesson that Jenin could have taught, were Israel not so inclined towards secrecy in that conflict and were reporters and NGOs not so credulous.)
Sadly, of course, all that is taken away now. Oh well; if the popular wisdom going around on the LGF comments boards and a good chunk of the warblogosphere holds true, it'll just speed that glorious day when those subhuman Paleostinians get forcibly thrown out of the territories and into the arms of their Arab brothers, so they can rot in "Islamist" hell together.