First, let's not fool ourselves. This is absolutely a war about religion. Hizballah is fighting in the name of their god, Allah. Israel is asserting its right to exist, basing that assertion on the fact it's been the only Jewish homeland for some 3000 years, in addition to it being home to Jerusalem, Judaism's holiest city.
A good, pro-peace world
In modern times, it's trendy to be anti-war, especially anti-religious war. Hey, peace is good, right? So war, then, is wrong. A very black-and-white view of things. And religion, to some, is nothing but a cause of wars.
Add to this the great humanitarian world and politically correct everything, and war immediately becomes this terrible bane of humanity: civilians get killed, things get destroyed. We devolve ourselves by giving into our animalistic, violent tendancies.
And wouldn't you know it, those things are generally true. War is bad.
An exception to the rule
There is one caveat, one thing the world at large often fails to see in its shortsighted black-and-white take on war: war against evil. War against evil is a predicament for peace lovers. We peace lovers are torn between not killing anyone (humanitarianism and all that, that war itself is evil, etc.) and the fact that we will be overrun by evils greater than war, if no action taken.
"Wars of defense are OK!", yells some shortsighted peace lover. While that would work in some cases, often times inaction in the face of evil is, by itself, a great evil. Imagine the United States doing nothing during Nazi Germany's terrible aggression in Europe, or the United Nations doing nothing to stop the genocide going on in Africa. Inaction can be immoral, too.
After being provoked by the Hizballah militant group, the state of Israel went on the offensive. They now are occupying a good portion of southern Lebanon, where Hizballah used to fire rockets down into northern Israel. Hizballah supporters will be quick to point out: many hundreds of Lebanese civilians have been killed during this Israeli offensive.
Buildings were destroyed, roads, bridges, and infrastructure all taken out, yes, but most of all the civilians. The bleeding heart world looks at the civilians casualties. The death of the hundreds of civilians, that is priority #1 for the world. And rightfully so, human life is precious and ought to be considered above all else.
Looking at civilian losses only?
Looking at human life here, civilians in particular, it's no wonder there are some in the world that wonder what the hell Israel is doing. All that loss of civilian life, dear Lord what is going on?! That can't be right to kill so many people. When looked at from this perspective, Israel is the evil one, and Hizballah is merely a freedom fighter group.
But are we so shortsighted to look at losses only? Is there no look at the reasoning behind the war? No look at the motives between the sides? Is our spectrum so limited that civilian losses is the sole arbiter of who's right and who's wrong? After all, if it were, Nazi Germany would easily have been the "good guy" in WW2, given that far more of Nazi Germany's civilians died than any other nation's civilians; especially the huge Allied bombings of German cities that had, on some cities, dropped nearly 1 bomb for ever 2 German civilians.
But in the end, those bombings were justified. Despite the horrible loss of life--civilian life--, the world looks back fondly of the Allies who fought off Nazi Germany and its heralded anti-Semitism. Why have such bombings been justified? The massive losses of life, why has history given them the OK? The answer, in retrospect, is simple and obvious: Nazi Germany was evil. It was so evil, in fact, that it was far better to kill their civilians and bring about the end the war, than to let Nazi Germany be. The goal was simply to destroy everything Nazi in order to bring about a lasting peace, where we wouldn't have to worry about Nazi Germany anymore.
Israel's situation
The situation in Israel is similar, but fortunately on a smaller scale. Israel has an opponent that is clearly evil. Anyone denying the evil nature of Hizballah's ideologies--which includes the genocide of all Jews in Israel, all in the name of Allah--is blinded by some zealotry, probably religious. We have a clearly evil war group in Hizballah. And the other side, Israel, is so convinced of their opponent's evil nature, they have a plain, straightforward goal: destroy everything Hizballah.
To put it plainly on the table for you, Israel's war against Hizballah is a war against pure evil. Pure evil. Evil on par with Nazi Germany; in fact, Hizballah's position on the Jewish people is quite similar to that of Nazi's Germany's: both are anti-Jewish, both are inspired by a belief that their identity gives them the authority to kill Jews, both adhere to the idea that killing Jews is a final solution for the world's problems.
If fighting an evil enemy weren't enough, Israel did something greater than even the Allies did: rather than purposefully kill civilians en masse through bombings, Israel dropped leaflets, broadcast over radio and television airwaves, did pretty much everything they could to warn Lebanese civilians to leave the areas planned for war. They did this because their goal isn't to kill Lebanese civilians, but rather, destroy the evil group that is Hizballah.
The world's faulty moral compass
Despite all this, modern world morality is so cloudy, we can't even tell right from wrong anymore; in a case so clear as Israel versus Hizballah, in the world there is only confusion. As far as I can recall, the world at large hasn't made a single good moral decision in my lifetime. It seems almost everything the UN does nowadays is influenced by morally confused European nations or zealous Islamic fundamentalists. This is the reason you see that body passing piece after piece of legislation against Israel and the United States.
Such morality is one with no real basis or guideline. The modern world generally bases its moral decisions--arbitrarily choosing the "good guy" and the "bad guy"--based on which side lost more civilians. Excuse my simpleton language, but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Because one side has more civilian deaths than another side, we should assume the side with fewer deaths is the good guy? What a joke the moral compass of the world has degraded to. War is evil, unethical, yeah, but we've let this fact limit our ability to think through the whole situation by stopping at the act of war itself. We need to look beyond this and onto the motives and causes, only then can we say who's right and wrong, and what needs to be done.
The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, recently condemned Israel's "disproportionate use of force". Yes, Mr. Annan, the loss of life is terrible, civilian loss of life in particular, but in the face of evil, it is better to destroy evil than to let it fester and grow, better for a lasting, longer peace. And the last time I checked, wars were won when one side applied a "disproportionate amount of force" to the other side. Let's not be so shortsighted this time; let's not let this evil fester and put down more roots than it already has. Letting evil grow by forcing temporary peace may be good for our generation--the recently announced ceasfire may hold for a few months--but for a lasting peace, one that lasts through our children's generation and beyond, evil must be overcome. Evil must lose.