Indecisive? Isreal?
There is now a debate in Isreal on how to proceed. What they've been following is a doctrine I outline here, but there are new complications. In short, Hezbollah has placed tactical and strategic assets within villages and then prevents the villagers from evacuating, even at gunpoint, using them as a human shield to protect those assets and counting on Isreali restiscence to spare those assets. This happened in other villages in South Lebanon. While this is a damnable war crime in UN views, it puts Isreal in a difficult position. The fact that Hezbollah, an organization that launches hundreds of random rocket into civilian population centers daily, also a heinous war crime, uses these tactics with their own people, doesn't come as a great surprise.
The US cavalry had a solution for such during Viet Nam, the logical tactic of wiping out such targets anyway, ruthless but effective. But as it later learned, creating places like Mei Lai and others is strategically counter-productive, even when you are in the right. The Viet Cong were never held accountable for the use of those tactics and they even chained innocent civilian and priisoners of war to SAM emplacements, using them as human shields for their tactical assets.
That said, I think that they should have turned Bint Jbeil into a "sandbox" instead of choosing to fight Hezbollah in its own terms, street-to-street. Lao Tzu was probably shaking his head in disgust at that decision. Also, after almost 3,000 years of turning Lebanon onto swiss cheese with Qanat systems, the place is lousy with undocumented caves dug through solid rock, some of which haven't flowed water for millenia, and are being used to hide weapons stores and troops.
The "Powell" doctrine is a correct one and they are eventually going to have to send in troop in order to pacify the area. However, "They" don't have to do it. All they have to do is play whack-a-mole with Hezbollah rocket launchers until a Lebanese army can step in. But in order to let that happen they have to weaken Hezbollah enough such that the Lebanese army is able to step in. No they don't have to send in troops in order to do this, if they have a large enough weapons stockpile. But they have to be willing to create the occasional "sandbox". This is the same order of ruthlessness that the US Army used on the Lakota Sioux, the Cherokee, the Crow, and the Apache/Navajo. The American "Indian Wars" are the only documented instance of a conventional force beating a decentralized and independent guerilla force, to my knowledge. No, it wasn't bows and arrows v Winchesters, the Indians had Winchester rifles before the US Cavalry did. But the tribes were amazed at the ruthlessness with which the Army pursued the war and when the Cavalry finally did get Winchesters and Gatling guns, entire camps and villages (women and children included) were wiped out in less than a single day each(see: General Armstrong Custer).
The weakness of the human shield tactic is this; Those humans forced to become your reluctant shields are also your supporters. No one is going to support you politically if they are killed shielding your tactical and strategic assets. If your opponent is willing to be ruthless enough, then you will lose those assets anyway and lose your political support as well, leaving only your opponents alive. This is a part of what needs to be done to weaken Hezbollah as well as destroying their tactical assets. The Viet Cong were able to successfully use that ploy because they didn't have to use their own civilian supporters to do it. They used dissenters and American prisoners instead (Remember that the VC were never held accountable for their war crimes, neither will Hezbollah nor will Isreal if they chose to follow this path.)
Finding and assassinating those clerics that created and financially support Hezbollah would go a long way towards that goal as well. Sending a fire team specifically targeting Nassrallah, and his top command, also would not be a bad idea.