Basically what you are saying is that more Lebanese/Palestinians have died than Israelis and therefore Israel is guilty. This bizarre calculus implies that if only more Israelis had been killed by Hezbollah rockets, there would be no moral quandary.
While proportionality may be a relevant measure in some situations \ufffd baseball statistics and model cars come to mind \ufffd the appropriateness of Israel\ufffds response to the Hezbollah attacks should not be measured by the number of people who are killed in Lebanon.
This argument distorts the real question. The Arab world has little regard for the value of life. Are you including the suicide bombers in the equation? What about the "militants" who fire from the houses or crowds of civilians?
In addition, Israel should not be punished for having invested in bomb shelters and early-warning systems. These have cost the Israeli public dearly over the years.
The question is whether the goals of the military action are justified.
The goals of the present conflict are for Hezbollah to shoot as many rockets as possible into populated city centers to kill as many civilians as possible; and for Israel to uproot the terrorist infrastructure, missile launching pads and the terrorists themselves by using intelligence gathering and precise bombing.
Rather than seeking "an eye for an eye" or retribution, Israel is seeking to eliminate the threat of future attacks on its cities.
This response will be successful not if it is proportional, but if it results in the elimination of this threat.
In December 1941, would anyone have suggested that the United States\ufffd response was appropriately "proportional" and complete after the first 2,400 Japanese had been killed? How many German and Japanes civilians died in WWII compared to American civilians?