Today, the catchphrase in the media concerning the Hezbollah/Israeli conflict is "Disproportionate Force", with standard question "Is Israel using it?"
It is, of course, yet another strawman in a long series of media strawman arguments. Of course Israel is using disproportionate force. They can't help but use disproportionate force, they have one of the top five most modernized militaries in the world. They dominate the skies. They outnumber Hezbollah 20:1. They have satellite recon, incredible main battle tanks, and (if they are feeling a little crazy) nukes.
That isn't the question at all.
Frankly, I couldn't care less if Israel had an "Easy Button" from Staples that killed whoever the Prime Minister thought about when he pushed it.
The question is whether Israel is applying that power properly. And the answer can only be "no" (which is why our media doesn't ask that question).
Of course the Israeli people have a right ot defend themselves. But do they have the right to kill people who have nothing to do with the conflict? Do they have the right to destroy Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, wreck its economy, and possibly plunge it back into the civil war it has just recovered from?
Did Israel need to bomb the civilian airport, destroy the roads that bring food in and allow refugees out, attack civilian power plants, and attack civilian neighborhoods far from where Hezbollah has its stronghold and military force?
Of course not. And worst of all, those attacks cannot help but empower Hezbollah, as angry Lebanese victims and refugees turn to an organization that will seek revenge. Destabilizing the government can only create an environment that allows more power to be grabbed by Hezbollah.
If Israel would have content itself with attacking Hezbollah, the criticism of its actions would have been a tiny fraction of what it is taking now. It could have destroyed the bulk of Hezbollah's strength and weakened its power in the government of Lebanon. It could have seized the border, and demanded concessions further limiting Hezbollah before releasing it, possibly to UN control. And been completely justified in doing so.
To my mind, I'm nearly certain that Israel has seized on this opportunity to hamstring an emerging economic rival in the region. Lebanon was rapidly recovering from its civil war, and was returning to its place as a Mediterranean tourist Mecca, safe for Christian, Jew and Muslim. Civil war in Lebanon suits the Israeli hawks' purpose just fine here, not only because it keeps an economic rival down, but also because the hawks in Israel need Israelis to be ever afraid in order to hold onto power (sound familiar?). Israel's palestinian enemies have been really ineffective the past couple of years, and there is little worse for a hawk than not having a dangerous enemy.
Israel will always apply disproportionate force, and why shouldn't they? They have the technology, why fight fair? The issue is always where they decide to apply the force, and why. No one in the media is addressing those questions, except in ways that allow the obvious straw argument "Israel has the right to defend itself". That answer seems to allow any official off the hook for anything, with no followup along the lines of "And how was the Lebanese water system a threat to you?"