Jakub, I agree restraint is a much better path.
Still, Israel and Hamas are at war. Real war. War until one side is dead war.
I think there is no future where Israel will decide is ok for Hamas to openly control and operate within Gaza. The ongoing security risks to Israel are too great to allow that. Of course an underground Hamas or something like it will always exist. But an underground Hamas is less able to execute attacks, so that is the one Israel will choose.
Really the only short term thing we can hope for, is a degradation of Hamas that does not involve so much death.
As you say, restraint is the better path. And I agree. But I think we might not agree on the final outcome:
A Gaza that is not open run by Hamas, and whose leadership actively hunts remaining Hamas. Israel will simply keep killing Palestinians until it achieves this objective. The only question is how many will it kill.
I feel you are trying to put the removal of Hamas as a governing or powerful force off the table because "the costs are too high". But its just not off the table... Even if Netanyahu looses power because of his execution of this war (and allowing it to happen in the first place). The next person will remain committed to blocking Hamas by whatever means is needed.
So I propose an edit to your stance: restraint, exerting minimum force needed to dislodge Hamas.
(If I were in charge I would have used Israeli lands to setup refugee camps for 2M people, then filled them with medical, food, and kids education. And had an orderly "immigration" into these camps driven by 'voluntary' migration of the whole population. I put quotes around the word 'voluntary' since I would have cut off all water and food. quite brutal, but once folks realized one must move to the camp in order to eat and drink, they would have come. And few lives need be lost.
Of course poor members of Hamas would end up quite screwed in this situation. Still I think they are already lost in a war against Israel, but at least the larger population could be spared.)
