I'm continually amazed at the British newspapers.
They grudgingly admit that Hizbullah's activities are wrong. Yet, they have no solution, other than "Israel should stop".
On Friday, the commentators in the Independent said 2 things:
1) That the Lebanese government cannot stop Hizbullah
2) That an international force wouldn't be tolerated by the Lebanese--it would be seen as a stooge of the West and a repeat of 1982-3.
So if Israel can't react to Hizbullah (and as the Economist pointed out last week, the attacks may be disproportionate in terms of the immediate action, but possibly not in terms of the wider threat Hizbullah and its backers represent), and Lebanon can't control them, and an international force will fail--what should we do?
Oh yes--sit back and take it. Already, there's been comment and letters trying to link Hizbullah and Palestine. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING. Sheikh Nasrallah is open about his goals: the destruction of Israel and the Jews. He says it clearly. He doesn't care about a Palestinian state; he's still fighting the war of 1948.
Again, I don't necessarily think every Israeli attack is correct, and I'm unsure if Israel can unseat Hizbullah using its current strategy. But I do believe that it's a real threat. It's not just about a couple of kidnapped soldiers. That was just a test. If outsiders want the attacks to stop, they have to come up with a real plan. UNIFIL has been a failure for 28 years. It can only observe. (And I'm unsure about ANY UN-backed force, simply because they're so rarely effective.) If they want Israel to stop attacking, they need to neutralise Hizbullah. Plain and simple.