Also because one would have to weigh the alternative.
Imagine Israel declared an old fashioned war against Lebanon as response to the missile strikes originated from its territory.
I think the number of civilian casualties of a conventional "legal" war would be much much higher than the collateral damage of this operation.
Now, does that make it "right"? To me war is horror and is to avoid at all cost. Is a smaller horror a cost one's willing to pay to avoid a bigger horror? Hard to say. But I think it's still important to at least try to see things in a broader context otherwise we may never understand why people on the ground make the choices they do.
Your post is non-sense, because this operation was clearly meant as a starting salvo (to create a confusion) in a war against Lebanon. It was at risk of being discovered, so they triggered the explosions early, to at least get some effect. Reports in Israeli media confirmed this rather quickly after the explosions. Also the mass bombings killing thousand people in a few days started almost right away after the operation.
I don't understand people who think Israel is some benevolent entity that just tries to defend itself while causing as little harm and disruption as possible. They murder innocents left and right every day, create havoc in multiple countries at once, terrorize and occupy people for decades, all while playing a victim card constantly.
Imagine Israel declared an old fashioned war against Lebanon as response to the missile strikes originated from its territory.
I think the number of civilian casualties of a conventional "legal" war would be much much higher than the collateral damage of this operation.
Now, does that make it "right"? To me war is horror and is to avoid at all cost. Is a smaller horror a cost one's willing to pay to avoid a bigger horror? Hard to say. But I think it's still important to at least try to see things in a broader context otherwise we may never understand why people on the ground make the choices they do.