Nyt and Guardian seem fine, (in)directly quoting the idf.

Yup, kind of like when we torture people and they call it ‘enhanced interrogation’.

Give something a sanitized term and people will run with it.

“Pre-emptive” and “self-defense” are objectively true here. Hezbollah initiated its current conflict with Israel and continues to launch attacks; Israel is fighting defensively and destruction of Hezbollah assets prevents future attacks on Israel.

(You might believe that Hezbollah is justified in attacking Israel, but it’s still the attacker and Israel is still the defender.)

The Guardian is clearly quoting. Judging an article by its title is like judging a book by its cover: clearly misguided.