hate getting dragged into this because there is no right and wrong on all of this unfortunately...just posturing (lots of it sanctimonious) from every angle from largely unaffected observers leveraging this for entertainment and to pass the time.
however, to this specific point...germany and japan were brought to heel by annihilation with literally (not figuratively) the most destructive force the world has ever seen and the complete and utter slaughter of civilians to devastating effect and subsequently, were effectively neutered for half a century by the rest of the world imposing violent threat. at least 25,000 people were killed in dresden alone. across all the bombing campaigns, at least 350,000 german civilians. 200,000-300,000 people were killed in hiroshima and nagasaki alone. what the world was willing to do to "rehabilitate" germany and japan far exceeded the atrocities of anything ever since. and there is a very strong and persuasive argument that they were justified...as well as strong and persuasive arguments that they were not. but at the end of the day, their societal "evil" was snuffed out by learning in the grossest possible way that they could not impose violence as effectively as their adversaries...and it was their fault. but if you are going to point to germany and japan as wonderful test cases of rehabilitation, you cannot ignore the violence perpetrated on them to bring them there...which is what israel would absolutely love to do right now.
just keep that in mind while waxing poetic about the nature of humanity...particularly when you have never been faced with legitimate threats to survival.
@SydneyCarton's post above generally captures to reality here imo. brisket and others are acting emotionally. no doubt about it. but they do pose a realpolitik inquiry that is just being conveniently ignored by those who have the luxury of projecting self-righteousness on this message board and saying "well i don't need to answer your question because i can't." no rational person wants civilians to die, that's a given. note: when i say rational person, that does not include the many pieces of shit we have on this board that get off to the idea of palestinian genocide.
but if one accepts that hamas is strategically utilizing civilians as shields and that hamas has acted belligerently in a barbaric way...and then impose the notion of "you are not allowed to have any civilian collateral damage under any circumstances," then one is truly at an impasse. and so what is israel to do if one believes they have a right to respond...when the only response inevitably includes collateral damage due to the tactics of the adversary? dispassionately stating categorically and unequivocally that israel should not kill palestinian civilians does not make you righteous, particularly from the comforts of the other side of the globe. it is a basic position of any decent person and it is what any reasonable person believes. but if one adopts that categorical imperative in a context in which hamas has demonstrated a willingness to strike at your civilians violently and then retreat behind the walls of hospitals to avoid reprisal, then one is faced with the question...what can israel reasonably do? don't hide behind not being a "military strategist." you have to confront that reality: either israel can do nothing in service of avoiding civilian casualties at all costs given hamas's strategy and must just absorb the violence as a reprisal for their past sins (which are many)...or you have to allow for some gross consequences that will undoubtedly be abused by an emotional aggressor that has just been severely hurt.
and of course, EVERYTHING i just said can be reasonably flipped on the other side in this particular scenario. to huckleberry and wildcat's point...if you are a member of an oppressed and abused underclass of society and you unjustly exist in a prison-esque state of apartheid for generations, one is faced with the realpolitik inquiry of do you demonstrate a willingness to impose violence en masse to your oppressors to impose change and are your barbaric acts justified by that? strong and persuasive argument for. strong and persuasive argument that you should also not indiscriminately murder children.
it's tragically why this is so nasty and has been for a very long time. it is one of the worst manifestations of humanity we have conjured in our time. and unfortunately, it will continue to be until i become king and euthanize everyone on the planet besides me and all the italian women that look like monica bellucci, the spanish women that look like penelope cruz, the south american women that look like ana de armas.
tldr: i love hot mediterranean and south american women and everyone else should leave them and me alone.