>>And Pat,  I don't think a "cease fire" = "pacifism".

I would tend to agree.  That said, I have serious doubts that any international force (UN peacekeepers, NATO troops, or the US military alone) can actually accomplish disarmament of Hezbollah.  If one takes that as a given, and if continuance of the past 50 years of status quo is unacceptable, it's not such a great leap to a continued Israeli incursion. 

A very difficult problem, indeed.  Nevertheless, between the relatively modern and open society of Israel vs. the regressive fundamentalism of Sharia-based countries, I know which I'd rather win.  Whether one calls Israel's eventuall pull-back a cease-fire or pacifism, the one thing that seems to be increasingly clear is that they will be targeted in either case.  As such, the more aggressive approach seems (to them) their only option.  While I think the Palestinians might eventually accept a side-by-side, two state solution, I doubt that Hezbollah, Syria, or Iran will in the short term.  Hence, the lady's argument that the only way out of the problem is confronting and ultimately defeating Islamic fundamentalist fascism.  Whether or not that's best accomplished through Israeli force, US force, or other less-forceful means seem to be the defining question of our time, wouldn't you think?