The two situations are completely different.

I know, I know. I was being unneccessarily snarky (but the “occupation” comparison still stands, as a pure theoretical concept). But I appreciate your modification of your statement very much.

It is very important to note that “we” (i.e., American citizens, assumedly) have an almost obsessive connection with Israel, while virtually ignoring vast swathes of equally distressing situations (Congo, anyone?).

Of course, Somalia is a total train wreck, anarchy personified. Different situation entirely

I do suppose I should modify that sentence to say “if this were any country other than Israel, that's what America would be demanding, if in fact we cared at all.”

If this were any country OTHER THAN Israel, that's what America would be demanding.

Au contraire. See, e.g., Somalia.

What about the notion that Israel is an occupying power? American leaders, pundits, and reporters alike are afraid of even mentioning that. Israel is responding to an uprising in occupied territory, it's that simple.

The right answer is to stop the occupation and restore freedom to those territories. If this were any country OTHER THAN Israel, that's what America would be demanding.

However, so saying, a quibble:

While I am aware of “proportionality” as a term of art in Int'l Law, most of the reaction from the “left” regarding the “disproportionate” “reaction” of Israel is an ethical/moral reaction, not a legal one. While it's true that the air strikes in Gaza may not be “disproportionate” under the U.N. Charter, Geneva Codes, or other relevant “Laws of War”[1], most people are not reacting to any technical violation of international law.

Rather, people are reacting to the common definition of “disproportionate,” wherein the rocket strikes caused relatively[2] little casualties while the Israeli military actions have killed several hundred people. How many of the dead are legitimate military targets (i.e., “Hamas” members[3]) and how many are categorically civilians is somewhat beside the point: it is certain that there have been more innocent deaths from the air raids than from the rocket attacks. That is what appears terribly disproportionate to many people, and should be acknowledged as a legitimate concern. If Israel insists on defining the current military strikes as an immediate reaction to Hamas' rocket attacks on civilian targets, you can only expect observers to weigh the two sides by that measure.

[1] There is, of course, a principled debate about Israel's obligations under such laws, re: civilian reprisals, occupation, blockading, etc., but that's a whole other topic of discussion. Volokh and Balkin can spar on that one.
[2] Relative to, say, the fatalities during the last Infitada, or the Hezbollah attacks and subsequent Lebanon Invasion, or any given week in Iraq, etc.
[3] Ignoring the question of who is a “member of Hamas” in actuality, which is a thorny subject to say the least.

However, I think you've misstated the definition of proportionality a little. Here's what you wrote:

Proportionality is not measured against the precipitating action of the enemy which sparked the conflict, it’s measured against the military objective the state is attempting to achieve.

In the current situation, Israel responded to steady rocket fire from Gaza with a punishing air assault aimed at destroying the political and military leadership and manpower of Hamas. This is a legitimate military objective, albeit one clearly more far-reaching than Hamas’ rocket fire. Nonetheless, so long as long as the military strikes are proportionate to the goal of the operation, proportionality is not breached. Most sources I’ve read indicate that Israel has done a stellar job in this instance minimizing civilian casualties — most of the Gazans killed have been Hamas soldiers, policemen, or leaders.

The way our military deals with this particular issue is that the value of the military target is weighed against the likelihood and scale of civilian casualties. You can't level a city because the city includes a government office even if the government office is a legitimate military target.

The Israelis' problem is that aerial bombardment isn't the only means available to them; it's just the means available to them that will produce the fewest military casualties on their part.

I genuinely believe that the Israelis are taking as much care as possible to conduct their bombardment with as few civilian casualties as possible and so far I think that's been the case. However, their tactic has a time limit. The Israelis can't bomb indefinitely without it becoming disproportional use of force.

agreed, and the first principle of arbitration

dr.e