It would be easy to respond that indeed WWII was one big Human rights violation by today's standards. Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, etc. These are notorious for Allied bombings that killed thousands of civilians, but the Allied Forces believed that it was necessary to purposefully inflict these damages to end the war.
When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cinders, and turned the Japanese home islands into rubble and ruin.
Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right -- legal and moral -- to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.
Even if Israel is purposefully inflicting civilian casualties they might be justified according to Krauthammer, but I refuse to believe that the IDF would do that. We've seen evidence for the last four years (Jenin, Gaza, etc.) that shows that the IDF is willing to risk the lives of their soldiers to prevent civilian deaths. As Krauthammer explained we're dropping leaflets warning of an impending attack giving Hezbollah time to evacuate, but we must be the or l'goyim - we must show the world how to properly deal with terrorists cowardly hiding among civilians.
So is Israel disproportionate? No. It seems to me that Israel has a stronger moral backing than the Allied forces had in WWII. It will not be easy and more soldiers (like my friend Michael Levin) h"vs will be killed, but we must defend ourselves.
What Olmert needs to explain to the world that we cannot give up while our civilians are still being attacked. If it takes another week to destroy Hezbollah, go for it. But do not stop this campaign until the threat is finished.