Israel, Lebanon, and Just War Theory

While I sympathize with some of the points made by NRO's Andy McCarthy in this post, I'm pretty sure I don't agree with the heart of his argument:

Ten civilian casualties can be ten too many if there is no military value in the target. (See, e.g., the typical terrorist suicide bombing.) Hundreds (even thousands) of civilian casualties can be justified if they are fall-out from an appropriate military operation and/or if, in the long run, enduring them means fewer civilian casualties (e.g., strikes that destroy the capabiities of a terrorist organization that hides among civilians).

The big question here concerns what constitutes "an appropriate military operation". While targeting Hezbollah in southern Lebanon is certainly an appropriate response, I'm not sure McCarthy's logic applies as cleanly when it comes to lobbing shells into civilian areas in Beruit. Moreover, if evidence on the ground suggests that a UN orchestrated cease-fire would be more likely to bring an end to the conflict, then it is incumbent upon Israel to pursue a diplomatic solution. As Matt notes, given Israel's long and bloody relationship with Hezbollah, "it seems very unlikely that weeks or months of anti-Hezbollah actions are going to provide a permanent solution to Israel's problem on the northern border."