OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz, the chief of staff of the Israeli military, apologized for the deaths.
However, he added that the attack occurred because Hezbollah uses "civilians as human shields and intentionally operates from within civilian villages and infrastructure" to launch rocket attacks on Israeli targets.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/03/israel-qana.html
Implicit in Israel's response to Hezbollah -- and explicit in our own government's stated policies -- is the notion that it's "unacceptable" to allow the presence of innocent civilians around an (alleged) terrorist position to prevent military attack on that position. What I don't understand is why it's unacceptable. Who says? Where is it written?
In my area, all police departments have now virtually ended the practice of pursuing criminals who flee in cars at high speed. This is because too many innocent bystanders were injured or killed in crashes resulting from these high speed chases. The benefit -- increased chance of apprehending felons quickly -- was found to be not worth the cost.
I submit that we ought to consider the possibility that the same principle applies here. Yeah, it's infuriating to the soldiers to not be able to launch their most destructive weaponry from a distance. That may, however, be the only sane policy.