When you look at the amount of suffering other countries in the region, all anti-zionists, had/have to go through, i won't blame some of them to conclude that it'd be better for everyone to just draw a line on the past and accept Israel.
They may think that they're entitled to something in exchange, but that they're not united/strong enough to impose their will or 'reject their alliance with'/'put more&more pressure on' the west. So be it then if it's a sacrifice worth making.

Game theory could support a harsh response,

You mean the brutality everybody was ignoring before Hamas' attack that didn't manage to prevent such an attack?

imposing a high cost should anyone consider future attacks against Israel's civilians.

Right now they're giving gazans tens of thousands of reasons to want revenge against this bloodthirsty regime. They're actually doing the opposite. Yes go devastate these people who have nothing left to lose, that's definitely how you reduce extremism.

Yeah, bombing people is notoriously good at deterring further political violence (/s obviously).

What do you call collective punishment again? A War Cream? No that's not right ...

random tweets

He's the director of the World Health Organization, and many articles are talking about many U.N. schools, the most recent one has been linked to this video, and when you look at one of these schools, here, it's not hard to imagine it being bombed in regard to the surrounding desolation. It's more symbolic of their unwillingness to create safe zones than anything else, they even bombed refugee camps, and are used to kill innocent civilians in order to settle on their lands anyway.

You can't depose Hamas, even if they managed to kill all of their leaders(, who don't reside in the Gaza strip anyway), they'll just elect new ones, i thought that this was obvious to everyone else. Even if Hitler was killed the third reich would have continued existing, the same goes for Israel if you kill Netanyahu, or the u.s.s.r. if you killed Stalin, there are a few modifications but the state doesn't suddenly disappear, sry but i shouldn't have to explain such obvious things and i'm afraid that a lot of other people think like you even if it's so obviously delusional.
Game theory ? They were attacked because they stole these (holy )lands, and were continuing to steal more and more of them, committing atrocities almost every day(, or at least week,) in a complete silence from "the free world". What's the point, would killing 100 persons in retaliation deter palestinians from fighting back ? 1000 ? 3000 ? 5000 ? When does it stop ? I wouldn't think that someone really say that the more Israel kills and the safer they'll be, how could it make any sense, they'll only be hated even more, do you think that they're acting guided by their emotions when they're expressing themselves so calmly ? Are palestinians allowed to "deter" israelis from acting like they do by killing even more of them ? Westerners had even more attacks on their territories once they wanted to "avenge" the first attacks by killing so much more people, in truth it's obvious to almost everyone that vengeance wasn't our goal, but our objectives were geopolitical, and were attained by burning everything held by the islamists, and torturing&killing the prisoners. I hope that they're not thinking that their only way to prevent such attacks is to mass murder thousands of innocents, especially considering that their walls were effective for decades.
Netanyahu is already at the end of his political career, your explanation is awful if true, but i've already talked about the blinded desire for revenge without any aim, i can't think that they're only guided by emotions when acting so rationally, they're head of states not teenagers in a video game, if they're doing something like that it's in order to gain something that couldn't be obtained otherwise.
I don't agree with you because i can't see the point : is it really a blind/stupid desire of revenge ? Just killing innocents everywhere without any other goal than that ?

ah yes, game theory, the every man's justification for the flavor of foreign policy made popular by the literal Nazis, yes Realpolitik (in this context) was heavily pushed by Nazis and war criminals the world over, after all it thrives on homogenizing any groups, justifies collateral punishments, along with expansionist empires, and oppressing minority populations.

Sorry to interrupt your circle jerk with disagreement that leads to actual discussion and debate

Israel has been very clear that they will attack Hamas targets no matter where they are, inside or outside the evacuation area. If they wanted to just kill all the Palestinians they could have by now but they haven't. They built sophisticated AI to select their targets so that they can claim their targets are valid military ones.

I mean there's a real legitimate case to be made that they need to select their military targets more carefully or that the amount of civilian collateral damages too high, and I feel like that all gets overlooked when instead It gets replaced with the ridiculous claim that israel is trying to genocide all the civilians, which is obviously wrong.(Israel is comprised of many of the same ethnic groups you claim they are genociding.)

They're not. This guy is a bona-fide Zionist.

Hmm, reminds me of several middle eastern countries where the Jewish population now sits at 0% because literally every single one was either murdered or expelled.

Probably had something to do with them declaring war on Israel. Some were driven out, some left voluntarily. Those who stayed and were not belligerent seem to be fairing much better than those who keep trying to kill Israelis.

Jordan did the same shit in the West Bank when they won, funny how they have different rules I guess.

Things that should be relatively non controversial:

• There's no simple solution.

• Palestinian civilians is not equal to Hamas.

• Hamas is a terror organisation

• Israel army is currently exercising too much violence on Palestinians

• Israel clearly has the military advantage.

More vague points:

That puts most of the responsibility of how the situation develops in Israel hands. They can't change the minds of the Palestinians. But they have the power to minimise total harm. They should be able to keep a lower rate of casualties on the Palestinian side without significantly increasing casualties on the Israeli side? No?

What you described there is a war crime: International humanitarian law posits that no person may be punished for acts that he or she did not commit.

Article 33 - Individual responsibility, collective penalties, pillage, reprisals No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Source: Geneva Conventions (GCIV Art. 33).