Proportionate destruction

The chief crime that Israel seems to have committed in the eyes of the liberal
west and the Islamic east during the war in Lebanon is "disproportionate
destruction" of Lebanese apartment buildings and infrastructure. I am not one
of those who are prepared to apologize for this deliberate strategy, for two
reasons.
First, I reject absolutely the idea of "disproportionality" in war. When the
Allies invaded German-occupied Europe did they decide to keep their forces
small in order to be "proportionate"? When the US invaded Iraq, were they
criticized for having too large an Army? When they engaged in "shock and
awe" as a deliberate military tactic was that criticized as "over-kill"? In
these days the concept of "asymmetric warfare" is commonplace, witness Iraq.
The second reason is more specific, the southern portion of Lebanon is the
Shia region, and is Hizbollah's heartland. Not only is Hizbollah centered
there, but the Shia population identify totally with it. There was a time when
the more moderate Shia militia Amal had a considerable following in the Shia
region, but when all other militias agreed to disarm according to the Taif
Agreement of 1989, only Hizbollah remained armed, both because of its size and
power, so noone could force it to disarm, and because of its identification as
a "resistance" group against Israeli occupation.
But, once that occupation ended in 2000 with Israeli withdrawal, there was no
further justification for Hizbollah. But, that didn't matter to Syria and
Iran, they needed Hizbollah to continue to threaten Israel, and so they
concocted the Shebaa Farms region, as a small area that was transferred from
Syria to Lebanon, even though it was occupied by Israel, as a means to justify
Hizbollah still calling itself a "resistance" movement. Actually this is a
ludicrous situation, since the UN and all knowledgeable observers know that
this was merely an excuse. But, nevertheless it has become a cause celebre in
Lebanon and the Lebanese Government has used it as an excuse to both criticize
Israel and justify not acting against Hizbollah.
So the population in south Beirut and south Lebanon is completely identified
with Hizbollah, and its offices and arms caches are distributed throughout the
Shia region, in apartment blocks in south Beirut and in fortified villages in
south Lebanon. Hence the only way to dislodge Hizbollah from there is to
destroy the apartment blocks and villages that they are ensconced in.
Although Israel warned the Shia population to move north, and although the
actual total casualties given by the Lebanese Government of ca. 890 killed is
quite small given the amount of destruction and the number of sorties the IAF
flew, nevertheless this total represents in part the so-called "collateral
damage" that is endemic in war.
However, the ICRC and Lebanese Red Cross have now admitted that they
treated Hizbollah fighters during the war, as part of their historic role of
neutrality. Similarly Israeli medical teams have administered to wounded
Hizbollah fighters, several of whom were treated in Nahariya Hospital. It is
very suspicious that no Lebanese authority can give any figure for Hizbollah
casualties. It is well known that they merge with the civilian population, do
not use a uniform (and so are considered irregular forces) and use the
civilian population as shields. The IAF dropped leaflets listing the names of
nearly 200 known Hizbollah fighters killed in battle and the IDF estimates
that altogether up to 500 Hizbollah fighters may have been killed in the
month's fighting. If so this represents about 50% of the total dead estimated
by the Lebanese Government.
So the number of actual civilian casualties may be half that of the Lebanese
estimates and the destruction of south Lebanon was a proportionate attempt
by Israel to degrade the support and facilities for Hizbollah, in fierce and
intense warfare. In order to make it more proportionate should Israel kill
some more of its civilians and soldiers and destroy more of its buildings?