I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a nation's domestic politics has any bearing on their use of force. America has a lot of problems with how it conducts itself domestically, and it rankles when people bring that up as a factor in whether the USA is morally justified to intervene in conflicts abroad. This is not to say one should not be critical of a nation's domestic politics and cultural attitudes. It is rather to say that it should have no bearing on the morality of an intervention.
The reason being, interventions have a moral bearing all on their own. Just because a nation is more humanitarian to its own people than the nation they are attacking does not justify the actions undertaken in the intervention. And more to the point, nations that are distinguished in their embrace of egalitarian, democratic principles can still inflict tremendously vicious acts of force in an intervention.
For example, I don't think Japanese internment camps rendered our military action against Japan to be morally wrong. By that same token, though the USA was a more egalitarian and democratic nation than fascist Japan, it deliberately attacked civilian populations as part of a strategy to break the enemy nation's will to fight.
If one removes the domestic attitudes and principles of an intervening nation from judging whether an intervention is moral, then the question becomes an evaluation of the intervention itself. Factors then become - how necessary is this level of force in response? How likely is the strategy it is instrumental to capable of achieving a lasting peace?
Looking at the case of Israel's recent attack against the Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories, one has to wonder at the intent of the force. Israel, in this instance and in many recent instances, has a tendency to pursue a strategy of total warfare - attacking the civil sector of the enemy territory to paralyze and demoralize it, along with attacking specific military objectives. Many would argue that Israel's strategy goes too far in this regard - that Israel intends to cripple their surrounding states in order to make certain they cannot pose even the slightest potential threat.
Others would argue that Israel's strategy is, while harsh, for the greater good of preserving peace. They say that since Israel is capable of bringing such massive force to bear in order to ensure not only the minimal loss of lives on its own side and the achievement of its military objectives, but also to ensure the infrastructure is so shattered that the state can never effectively marshal arms against them. This, they argue, preserves Israel's military dominance best.
The problem I have with this latter argument is that the situation in the Occupied Territories is untenable; it cannot survive for long as it is. The Occupied Territories are largely dependent on foreign aid. They have exploding populations and increasingly limited space. Their basic human needs - water, power, commerce - are extremely restricted. It is, in essence, like a state of siege that only gets worse with time.
One "solution" to the Palestinian's woes, is for them to sign whatever peace accords Israel presents to them. But even this is likely untenable considering that any two-state solution would need to reverse many of the physical restrictions that Israel's location places on the Palestinian population, and provisions for this have not been made in the accords.
So, given that such a resolution is not likely, Israel will have to change its strategy. It cannot merely obliterate and restrict the Palestinian means of survival indefinitely. This is why Israel's actions are flawed: Not because a strategy of total warfare is flawed in and of itself. It would be a different matter if all the suffering this thread addressed was moving to a viable conclusion. Given that it is not, and that Israel still employs devastating amounts of force to ensure a destablized and unsurvivable Palestinian state, Israel is wrong in its actions.
I want the best for Israel and the Palestinians both. It cannot be achieved without some "end game" other than having one state starving and subject to the other's will.