Adolf Hitler was in power for less than 15 years. His ideas were relatively short-lived compared to the Palestinian fight for an independent state that has been going on for about 50 years. Moreover, unlike Hitler, Palestinians have had the support of international community. It seems to me no matter how to look at your example it does not prove anything you wanted to prove.
Oh please. How did we end WWII, by holding hands and singing Kumbaya? The thing I find humorous is that left wingers seem to have less regard for Palestinians than conservatives do. Left wingers assume that Palestinians are a bunch of wild eyed crazies that will keep on blowing themselves up and sending their children to die no matter what. To the left, palestinians are animals with no capacity to be swayed by reason. Conservatives understand the fact that, as human beings, it is still possible to get a point across to Palestinians, and that if force is necessary to make that point, it may be worthwhile for the lives saved in the long run. Rightly or wrongly, Israel's blunt statement- openly declare yourself in suport of terrorism and we will kill you- is similar to the statement the US made in dropping the bomb on Japan to end WWII. In both cases, you had a militant group that was determined to continue in a pointless struggle at the cost of much further bloodshed. The Japanese were even into suicide too- remember the kamikazes? With the Japanese, force solved the problem by clearly displaying our strength and resolve. The bombs made the point in a way no diplomat ever could. (And after making that point, we went back in and helped them rebuild.) The point of laying the hammer down is thus to deter greater bloodshed in the long run. In the current situation, this assumes that there is still some measure of reason in the Palestinian camp, and that Palestinians love their children too, in spite of their apparent willingness to blow them up. The sooner that the Palestinian majority is persuaded that trying to destroy Israel is a fruitless quest, the better. It also assumes, rightly I think, that if the core of terrorist instigators is annihilated, literally in this case, that the problem will go a long way towards being solved. I think most free world leaders are issuing statements of condemnation just to save face, when in reality they are glad to see something substantial happening. Innocents are one thing, Hamas is another. You don't negotiate with a rabid mongrel dog.
I think those who assassinate, rather than capture and bring to trial, are the wild eyed crazies. Your example of Japan is weak. They were an industrial machine crushed by a more powerful industrial machine. In this case we have one religious group fighting against another religious group. In the current situation we have people strapping bombs onto their children, not trained Kamikaze pilots. I don't view these people as wild eyed crazies, but rather a group that sees no reasonable alternative. This is not a new conflict, the age old methods have failed over the ages.
You capture a criminal and bring him to trial if you are dealing with crime. When you are involved in a war, the rules are different. Israel is at war with Hamas and any other group that would prefer Israel did not exist. The industrial machine aspect doesn't matter. The point is that force can and does solve problems where dialogue failed and has a track record of doing so. The use of force can also deter further bloodshed, and thus spare lives on the whole, in certain situations. Israel is not fighting Hamas as one religious group fighting another. They are fighting as a small country in a bad neighborhood tired of their neighbors trying to murder them. The fact that children are the aggressors makes the current situation even worse, and creates an even more compelling argument for stopping the bastard leaders on the Palestinian side who are sending children instead of themselves. Think of it as capital punishment for crimes of infanticide if you like. You see "no reasonable alternative" to strapping a bomb to a ten year old's chest and sending him to blow up a bus load of civilians? How the hell can child suicide bombers be a reasonable alternative to ANYTHING? How's this for an alternative: Palestinians take their case to the World Courts and the UN blah blah, agree to binding arbitration, come to a resolution, and spend some time and effort trying to educate themselves and building a market economy with all the foreign aid they would get once they dropped the terrorism thing, instead of stewing in hatred and obsessing over how they can obliterate Israel. The "age old methods have failed" because these terrorist assholes have been mollycoddled. No one has ever said hey Hamas: STOP this shit or we will KILL YOU. If you INSIST on being unreasonable, we will STOP YOU by KILLING YOU. Like I said, you don't negotiate with mongrel dogs. Your response only strengthens my case.
My response doesn't strengthen your case, it merely inflames you and your emotional position. I have no position, except that both sides are wrong, and are acting in a barbaric and desperate manner, which is reasonable when people are overly emotional, desperate and see no alternative to their situation. My blood doesn't "boil" for one side or the other. Neither side belongs in a "Holy Land" the way they behave. As a side note, the British viewed the Colonists as terrorists and barbaric, and King George was criticized for not being "tough" enough by the hawkish Brits. That you differentiate between a crime, and the actions of terrorism is in your mind, not in fact. We do not have one sovereign nation declaring war on another sovereign nation in this case.
Industrial machine per se may not be key but is often associated with what is--- a nation. A nation entitles something to lose, which gives force its leverage. What do you have to lose when you see yourself as occupied? This is why history has no examples of force short of genocide working against terrorism and plenty of examples of it working against individuals and nations.
Tolerance of evil for the sake of high mindedness is no virtue. In your effort to remain above the fray, you render yourself morally handicapped; hence your willingness to suggest that child suicide bombers are somehow a credible "alternative," and your unwillingness to recognize the difference between a country that wants to protect its people and a hate group whose entire ideology is based on murder. You are a philosopher king in the tradition of Plato who would rather argue to win for the sake of personal stimulation, with no true feeling or emotion for what you are actually saying. Being empty yourself, it is natural for you to regard others as lesser animals- especially others gauche enough to have passion alongside their convictions. No, for you ART, lofty detachment and a Kerryesque ability to see an issue from all sides is the highest calling, even if it never means taking a stand of any value. Your wisdom is chaff, your contributions empty and pointless. Scripture would recognize you as lukewarm, and Ayn Rand would recognize you as well. You would have no doubt been a devoted student of the professor at the party. Some will disagree with me but others know it's all true. By all means, continue sharing opinions for which you have no real conviction and spouting platitudes that have no real value.
The population percentage of terrorists in the middle east is actually relatively small. What you basically have is a large mass of people in poverty swayed by a hardened core of extremists. If you can neutralize the core, you can solve much of the problem. If you can bring the people out of poverty, or rather help them to bring themselves out, you can also solve much of the problem. Why should the average Palestinian be more worried about lines on a map than about whether or not he has a job and can feed his family? If you can remove the extremists who stand to profit greatly from the bloodshed (last I heard Arafat was a billionaire, not sure if it's true), then you greatly enhance the chance of convincing a larger contingent to accept peace. The same thing is playing out in Iraq. The insurgency is being led by a group of devoted extremists who have little to gain from an established democracy. The Iraqi people are torn because they are not yet advanced enough economically to recognize the folly of going back to extremist rule. But the point remains: remove the core and offer a credible alternative, and you can create a situation in which opportunity can flourish and extremists lose their toehold. That's why the terrorists are fighting so hard now; they know all the cards are on the table. If economic prosperity came to the middle east and Islam was no longer the primary concern of the average arab in the street, that would be the worst thing for the terrorists. All of their credibility and power would be gone.
You have been reading too much Sean Hannity. In the U.S., our sense of "righteousness" is in direct opposition to the other side's sense of "righteousness" and your sense of "righteousness" has its foundation in the typical Judeo Christian "self-righteousness" in the exact same manner as the Muslim extremists. Murder is wrong. It is wrong to assassinate people. That the behavior is justified because of a particular moral or religious bent is the problem, not the solution. I understand the feeling and intoxication of moral righteousness that you expound. It is a high that people will die for. The terrorists who flew the American Airline bombs into the twin towers had the exact same feelings you extol. Drop the emotional intoxication, and look dispassionately as Plato did to find the truth of a situation. If civilization is to continue, civilized behavior is required.
I've never read anything by Sean Hannity. Again I ask, is Israel or is Israel not at war with Hamas? Let's say you are the president of a small country. A neighboring faction has declared it their ultimate goal to destroy your country by any means, at any cost. This faction is funded by sources all over the world, and has the potential if not the immediate means to eventually acquire nuclear arms. How, by any stretch of the imagination, can you not consider that a legitimate war scenario? And what does it have to do with religion on Israel's side? Heck, what does it even have to do with religion on Hamas' side? According to many scholars, suicide bombings are not justified by Islam. Israel is at war, and they are not attempting to use the Talmud to justify their actions in self defense. How could that not be any more clear?