Foreign Policy, of a different variety

Steven Erlanger of the New York Times recently wrote an article (7/19/06, "With Israeli Use of Force, Debate Over Proportion") addressing the use of force employed by the Israeli military in proportion to both the perceived threats of both Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as both national and international sentiment concerning such threats/actions. The article brought to light, at least for me, some pressing issues concerning not just the Middle East in and of itself, but the United States' behaviour to the Middle East, specifically, and to the international community more generally.
Factically, or as much as can be claimed, at the time of the printing of the article there were "some 230 Lebanese dead, most of them civilians, to 25 Israeli dead, 13 of them civilians". And the scales tip one way. So this is how many have died as a result of this and point intrinsically to the nature of war. Over and above this, however, is the case made by the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, “Proportionality is not compared to the event, but to the threat, and the threat is bigger and wider than the captured soldiers.” The problem with this is the degree to which threats can be editorialized, skewed, perceived, and misperceived. It's a problem when you act militarily on perceived threats. Why? Because you can be wrong. Or you can be perceived right. But in the end it's how you perceive them. Livni is also quoted as saying, in response to the killing of civillians in and around the headquarters of Hezbollah in Beirut, “When you go to sleep with a missile,” she said, “you might find yourself waking up to another kind of missile.” Well maybe the threat of waking up to a kind of missile may just necessitate going to sleep with one, no?
Possibly the most infuriating point put forth in the article, though, is what Dan Gillerman, Israel's United Nations ambassador said: Referring to complaints that Israel was using disproportionate force, Dan Gillerman, Israel’s United Nations ambassador, said at a rally of supporters in New York this week, “You’re damn right we are.” Isn't this somehow punishable under some type of international law.
If not, then the least that could happen is some type of international condemnation. How about the U.S.? Nope, we're going to wait the fighting out before we do or say anything. Maybe send Condollezza Rice over there. We'll see.