To follow up on Lindsay's comments here, I think the whole question of whether Israel should have to "put up" with rocket attacks is something of a red herring. As it looks to me, there are really two questions:
1) Can they stop the rocket attacks?
2) If they can't, what's a reasonable course of action?
As basically all military observers, analysts, and reporters agree that Israel stands precisely no chance of grounding Hezbollah's artillery, the question moves onto number two. As it is, some folks seem to believe that nothing save full cessation of Hezbollah's strikes justifies a change in strategy -- Israel obviously can't live with a terrorist group flinging rockets over their borders. But that's not actually true. There are all manner of unpleasant, even deadly, occurrences that societies choose to "live" with all the time. In DC, people get murdered. When that spikes, we put more cops on the street. But we don't declare martial law, and Congress doesn't authorize the US Army to occupy the district. We've all decided that there's a certain number of murders we can live with, because the costs of trying to drop the rate further are too heavy to bear.
Meanwhile, back in Israel, Hezbollah has been tossing rockets into the country for years now, with Tel Aviv hardly judging the bush league provocations worthy of response. Indeed, even during this period, with Hezbollah launching concentrated attacks meant to murder the maximum number of civilians, the death toll has remained rather low, with a couple dozen Israelis killed compared to an assumed 600 or so Lebanese. Indeed, that's still more Israeli dead than Hezbollah killed all throughout the previous period. It seems clear now that a more measured response could've averted extraordinary suffering on both sides. It seems clear now that Israel must figure out what it can live with, because too many are dying within this response.
