it would be attributable to Iran. if the IDF felt that Iran posed an existential threat to Israel, as they rightly feel Hezbollah's long range missles do, they have a moral imperative to take out that threat by any means necessary.
Okay, but say I have a legitimate reason to believe you are going to punch me and give me a black eye (and if we were in the same time zone, I very well might) -- does this make it your fault if I cut off your arm and shoot your dog, even if I could just walk away and shut the door, or maybe punch you back (the option I'd probably choose at this point)? I ask because I think this may be the heart of our disagreement, the other issues being either aesthetic or borne of this issue. I believe it is one's responsibility to minimize the harm s/he inflicts on others. Inflicting harm is justified for self-defense, but only to the extent absolutely necessary for that self-defense.
EDIT: And I would attribute that minimally necessary response to you, but anything in excess of the minimum would be on my hands.
the difference, you see, is that the death of 1 Israeli soldier by the hands of Islamist fanatics, to Israel, is the same as the deaths of any number of Israelis. Thus, "punching" is very much not an apt analogy. Israel will protect every last citizen to its fullest capability. Period.
and I'd say al-Faqr missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, as soon as Hezbollah expressed an intent, obviously from a green light from puppet masters in Tehran to use them, pose an existential threat. if Iran gets close to acquiring nukes which the current Iranian administration would have no qualms of deploying as a means of destroying Tel Aviv and Haifa when developed, and the only way to take them out is a nuclear strike on Tehran, than that is Israel's moral imperative. i hope it doesn't come to that.
Well, of course, I hope it doesn't come to that, too. I think that in retrospect, we will look back on the war in Iraq as being a very dangerous move, allowing Iran to rise unchecked. It's terrifying.
You're missing the boat on the punching analogy, however. Let's say we're talking all-out destruction: I know of your "existential" plan to kill me and everyone I love -- savages, you know. Now, in order to stop you, depending on the situation, I might have to kill you. If I do, we can agree that you bear the responsibility for that. But if I choose to torture you first, or if I choose also to kill your family, or if I let you go but kill people you love, that's not on you, is it? These acts would be the products of my own recklessness or violent instincts or very irrational calculations, not of your threats.