You are apparently unaware of what intelligence services and special forces do. This isn't an episode of 24. They aren't using their spy satellites and increasing resolution. And spending special forces into a densely populated area where they would be quickly observed and attacked would just cause them to be killed. Here you can check out about the battle of Mogadishu.

I'm not in support of civilian casualties. I am not in support of war. But when war is brought to you, you cannot just ignore it. Life isn't a video game. And when you are in charge, every decision could alter the outcome. Special forces cannot put up their hoods and walk with their heads down to disappear into the crowd like this is Assassin's creed. Special forces work when they are not suspecting you, and when there is a possibility for small precise attacks making major changes.

There is no question that Israel aims to completely remove Gaza's ability to attack Israel for a long time. Everything else is people arguing over the level of malice. Israel has tried different solutions to stopping attacks. And certainly some people in power use the instability to remain in power on both sides. But, historically, that has not been the majority of Israelis or the government there. The situation after they left Gaza actually put more of those people into power (such as Bibi, who absolutely called what would happen in Gaza... as much as I hate to admit it).

Here is what we know. A big olive branch was rejected and exploited. Waiting it out and dealing with attacks on an individual basis, setting up security precautions, and diplomacy with outside Arab countries has so far failed and allowed for the third biggest terrorist attack in history. They are using what is militarily called rapid dominance. This includes a strong display of force that demoralizes and destabilizes an enemies ability to fight. It aims to reduce the casualties of the ground forces that come after and to shorten the length of the war overall. And that second part is also important here. Israel is a small country. They might be much more advanced, but they still have to deal with all of the same problems as any army concerning morale and resources. What happens if they instead lead with a ground force, but the war drags on and civilians are still dying, but this time it is because wars dragging on also destabilize and cause issues. On top of that, your military is now much weaker and exhausted. And you still have countries outside of Palestine that want to destroy you too.

But all you can see is what is happening. You aren't actually thinking about the results of alternatives.

If you took and killed my family due to some bullshit ideology, whatever it was, either side, I would nuke you and everyone who shared your ideology without a second thought. So let's stop trying to act virtuous and just understand why both sides are doing what they're doing....but one is sure to lose.

First a response then I'll answer your question. Read up on the camp David accords with Clinton. The Israelis were offering like 91% of the land back the green line and trying to find some middle ground concerning Jerusalem. But especially read up about the 2004-05 withdrawal from Gaza. They did with Gaza what you are suggesting with the west bank. And it become a breeding ground for terrorist attacks. Originally the plan was Gaza first, as an olive branch, then the west bank, then further peace negotiations to establish firm borders. But the outcome with Gaza was horrific and all political capital was lost. And Hamas has stated it will not negotiate and will not accept peace deals negotiated by the PA. You cannot suggest things that have been tried and pretend that the past didn't happen and that things will just work out. Israel has been there, done that.

So acknowledging the real world history of the situation, if I was in charge, then the goal is to change the playing field. Israel did this with Gaza before with the wall they are oft criticized for building. And it stopped all the suicide bombings that had been happening. So I'd have two goals. An even more secure border, probably talking a dmz area, and to wipe out as many known Hamas officials as I possibly can. Their power structure must be so disrupted that they it will take extended time for any organization to happen. This allows for other people (probably Fatah would be the goal) to replace them. Make it clear that my country is going nowhere and that the other side needs a new plan if they want security. After doing these things, then and only then, do we go back to the negotiating table. Do I like these things? No. But again history and my responsibilities. History tells us this can work. General Sherman. WWII with Japan. Is it a guarantee to work? No. But the status quo definitely does not work. And my responsibility is first to provide security for the people in my country. I would certainly take notes from ww2 concerning the rebuilding efforts, but that also required unconditional surrender from the Japanese. So long as there was peace, my government would be first in line to offer assistance (which was an established thing between the PA and Israel... But Hamas changed that. In fact it was their main platforms and why they were elected).

1. They did that. In Gaza. And it went really poorly if you haven't noticed. Which is actually why settlement in the West Bank started getting much stronger support within the government and from the population at large. So now you're fighting the war on two fronts?

2. Don't pretend like it's only Al-Aqsa. Also, it's not typically the Israeli government that does this. Mostly the Haredi. So how will you do this? And what will occur when you come up with the anti-raiding plan?

Does any of this stop Hamas from attacking the country you're supposed to be protecting?

So what have you accomplished?