Israel's recent attacks on civilian infrastructure, which have led to a humanitarian crisis, are not justifiable under the circumstances of the conflict. Does the kidnapping (not murder) of two soldiers, plus the firing of a few rockets justify the deaths of over 100 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians? Does it justify the kidnapping of Palestinian foreign ministers, the destruction of government buildings in Palestine, the demolition of civilian bridges? Does it justify the bombing of a TV station and an international civilian airport in Lebanon?
Leaders from all over the world have denounced Israel's disproportionate use of force. The only country that has not done so is the United States -- no surprise there.
The answer to your question, rhetorical as it may be, is YES! The kidnapping of three (not two) soldiers and the firing of hundreds (not a few) of rockets does justify the seemingly extreme reaction by the Israeli government. After the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza the Palestinian government chose, with absolutely no provocation, to lunch missiles at the city of Sderot on a daily basis. A sovereign nation being attacked cannot stand idly by while its citizenry is being bombed. If you have a problem grasping this concept of self-defense, just imagine what the US would have done to a nation lunching rockets at its cities. This unprovoked attack, in turn, is the sole underlying cause for the escalation. The IDF is simply exercising the right given to every sovereign nation: self-defense.
What amazes me time and time again is how those sorry-ass excuses for leaders, which include most of the European and Arab heads of state, refer to Israel’s self-defense as “aggression”. It’s astounding that after crossing over into sovereign Israeli territory, kidnapping Israeli soldiers, and bombing Israeli cities, all with absolutely no provocation, the leaders of the Hezbollah have the audacity to call for appeasement. Did they really think that their terror will have no consequences?