(1) You can't fantasize the kind of tech you wish you had in order to win a war, and you can't get "knockout gas" wherever you want. The reality is that if you, as an IDF soldier, get anywhere near Hamas, in Hamas-controlled territory, you're liable to be shot. Yes, there are tanks and troop carriers and such; but yes, Hamas has some anti-armor weaponry too. The best way to safely degrade Hamas capabilities is to bomb their most critical bases and infrastructure, which happen to be almost entirely in civilian areas. Your ideas are pretty fantastical. Of course if you admit fantastical ideas, reality won't make very much sense.
If you want to see footage of the tunnels, you only need to search "footage Hamas tunnels" and you'll see some. Since you asked the question, but apparently didn't do this, I can only assume that this part of the question is actually disingenuous. Of course things won't make sense when you don't even try to do what you need to to make them make sense! Not everything is of this sort, but seriously, you shouldn't write this kind of complaint if you won't do your homework.
If you're complaining that the media is showing you footage of starving Gazans but not of Hamas tunnels, well, maybe you ought to complain to your media sources, not to us.
(2) The lack of discussion of endgame reflects, mostly, a disparity between Netanyahu's stated goal of eliminating Hamas, and the reality that when Hamas support even in Gaza is high (it's higher in the West Bank, ironically), you might eliminate their military but they're not going to be completely gone. So of course if you start talking about the endgame, you have to start admitting that your entire premise is implausible. Bibi's a little too canny to do that, so the alternative is to not talk a whole lot about the endgame. You can find people talking about the endgame if you look (e.g. the first not-exactly-official but possibly-trial-balloon version was reported various places including https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-gaza-gallant-plan-post-war-hamas/).
(3) People do talk about elections a little bit.
Of course Hamas hasn't had proper elections since they were elected in, and have harassed (or killed) potential opposition, so if they haven't had elections in 18 years, why would they have them now (except possibly to take advantage of anti-Israeli sentiment in the aftermath of the Gaza invasion, if they were very confident that they'd win)? Besides, Gaza is in such terrible shape right now that holding elections seems even more fantastical than pumping tunnels full of knockout gas without being shot by Hamas.
Regarding Israel, elections don't just happen randomly because people feel like it. There are various things that would trigger an election early, which happened a lot, but anyway, it is talked about, with Netanyahu riding the "we can't afford to change leadership now" train as long as he can, and it's already wearing out (see e.g. https://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-elections-have-a-date-in-a-few-years-likud-official-after-the-war-hes-done/).
(4) The situation in Gaza is falling towards an avoidable humanitarian catastrophe that could, if allowed to unfold in full, could finally cross the threshold into genocide. So far, however, the determination to commit genocide seems low. Aside from the highly dubious decision to starve the entire population--and really, that is going to turn out genocidal if things aren't changed really fast--the reports are, anyway, that Israel has been trying pretty hard to avoid civilian casualties (see e.g. https://www.newsweek.com/israel-implemented-more-measures-prevent-civilian-casualties-any-other-nation-history-opinion-1865613) despite insisting on conducting a full-scale war to eliminate an entrenched military power in the middle of a densely-populated area.
Now, you might question the humanity of that strategy. Maybe conducting a rapid military offensive to completely destroy a fighting force of many thousands in a densely populated area is a bad idea. But that doesn't mean the intent is genocidal instead of grossly inhumane. And if you count the number of dead, while horrifying, it doesn't seem particularly of the right scale to eliminate the population; it hasn't even reached the yearly population growth rate yet.
However, if hundreds of thousands of people starve, yes, that's getting into genocide territory, and I don't know why Israel is flirting with that. My guess is that they think that Hamas has stored enough food to keep people alive, and will keep them alive? Or starving people will rebel against Hamas, who won't share their stored food, instead of Israel, which is preventing food aid from getting in? From afar, it seems borderline insane. But the U.S. is assuredly not down with genocide by starvation--it's stepping up to feed Gazans itself.
------------
There are tough questions one could ask about the Israeli response to October 7. You've mostly missed these and instead complained that you want to be spoon-fed the answers instead of doing some simple searches. Now, the job of the news media is indeed to spoon-feed people the answers because that is the service they provide. They do the work of asking the right questions and finding reliable answers so you don't have to. And they're often not. That's on them.
But if you consume the right media, you find more issues discussed (e.g. about endgame, the Atlantic had an interesting piece: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/hamas-survival-gaza-israel-war/677368/). And you not doing that, well, that's on you.