So, all this debate boils down to the question:
"How does a country go to war against terrorists?"
Here's how I see how this debate has gone so far:
PRO for Israel:
Israel has a right to defend it's citizens against harm. The fact that artillery, bombs, and missiles are killing Israeli citizens is not in debate. The weapon fire is coming from the Lebanese border, as are the terrorist "soldiers." Thus, to get to the source of the problem, the beginning of a good defense, is a good offense in Lebanon.
CON for Israel:
Israel doesn't have a right to kill a nation's civilians to get to an enemy not necessarily supported by the nation in question.
So, where does this leave us? Let's explore the options I've seen thus far:
Israel immediately ceasing hostilities:
Well, the Lebanese civilians can return to their lives of uncertain safety. The Lebanese civilians will still have a weak government that can't do anything about their Hezbollah cohabitants, who they know will not cease their aggression against Israel. Hezbollah continues to live amongst those civilians, threatening those civilians if they don't support them, and continue to get weapons and supplies from outside nations to continue their aggressive stance.
Israel continues hostilities:
The Lebanese official government can't do anything against their own "unofficial" army, the Hezbollah. So how can they even defend their own citizens from another nation's "official" military? Israel continues to attack Hezbollah enemies hiding amongst civilians, resulting in many civilian casualties. Hezbollah is put more on a defensive, thus keeping Hezbollah hostilities against Israel at a lower level. Israel is now not focusing upon a reactive defense, but is instead on a more of an active offense.
So, now where are we at? Obviously, the hotly debated topic of Israel's aggressive stance.
Looking at the website posted by alpinestar's original post, I wonder how different those little flags would look if the UN decided to actually confront the problem on hand... the Hezbollah.
Let's say that there was a perspective resolution from the UN where they send in troops to ferret out the Hezbollah from Lebanon, and thus giving Lebanon's official government a chance to solidify it's own power over it's nation.
Israel, The United States, and The United Kingdom would probably support such an action. However, Syria and Iran may oppose such an action, as well as any other nation that has interests in Hezbollah's continued existence (which is largely made up of enemies of Israel within the Middle East). Then, there would be those nations that would prefer to sit on the fence whenever it comes to anything, but a "peaceful" resolution that doesn't involve sending in peacekeeping troops.
The problem with this hypothetical scenario is not the result in handling the problem at hand, the Hezbollah, but the UN's general indecisiveness to solve the problem at hand because of how many nations have something at stake in this type of resolution. Imagine how Iran or Syria would feel if the UN was actually in the business of stopping terrorist groups? Officially, they oppose terrorist groups. Unofficially, the support them with weapons and supplies.
So, my question at the beginning of this post still remains unanswered:
"How does a country go to war against terrorists?"
As the world is today, most nations fear actually getting involved in a war, because of the world publics negative view of wars. As a result, there are unofficially supported wars that involve terrorists that aren't necessarily tied to any specific nation. On the flip side, when a nation is attacked by a terrorist group, how are they going to defend themselves against such a group? A nation does have a right to defend itself, and it's citizens. However, how does a country go to war against a terrorist group?
Can any of you actually answer this question? If you can, I'd bet that you could find a possible solution for Israel's problems and solutions. However, I'd also bet that there are several nations that would be against it.