While Hamas does have a right of armed struggle against the occupation, the taking of hostages and the killing of civilians are not permissible forms of resistance.

That said, it is almost impossible to imagine that the Israeli response would have been something lesser than the current genocide attempt if Hamas had just taken POWs during the October 7 attack. Bibi would have arguably been even more humiliated if Hamas had been acting with restraint, so the impulse for revenge would be even greater.

This show how little you understand Israelis. First this isn't about Bibi, second ot wasn't humiliation but failure, third no atrocities on civilians would certainly changed the response - probably equivalent to a larger cast lead operation which also act as precedent of how Israel acted on the past.

Making up scenarios sure is fun. Let me try!

It is almost impossible to imagine Israel would even look at the direction of Gaza had they just taken the statehood offers presented to them in 1947, 2000, 2001, or 2008, instead of repeatedly choosing terrorizing civilians over gasp compromising.

>It is almost impossible to imagine Israel would even look at the direction of Gaza had they just taken the statehood offers presented to them in 1947, 2000, 2001, or 2008

It's very much possible to imagine that.

Considering every single offer that was accepted by both sides was immediately violated by the Israeli side

Hey another flat out lie by the same user... "the Second Intifada began immediately after the collapse of major peace negotiations." You seem to be mixing up the aggressor with the Aggressé, seemingly intentionally, multiple times in a row.

What were the offers?

Bibi was aware of the plans, and allowed the attack to manufacture support for the greater Israel project.