And this is much more expensive, isn't it? Do they even have enough stockpiled to hit a substantial fraction of the targets they think they want to? Maybe they could use it more heavily without jeopardizing Israel's security as a country, but would it actually make that much difference to the civilian death toll?

I just don't think you're conveying a fair sense of the challenges Israel has to actually get rid of Hamas, who has been fortifying itself at the expense of the other Palestinians for the better part of two decades.

If there had been universal horror and condemnation of the attacks followed by very swift agreement that Hamas was going to be ended as an entity, perhaps we could have set up a demilitarization sweep, where international troops (ideally entirely Arab) would go through and disarm Hamas and dismantle infrastructure that only serves destructive purposes. There would be a sweeping security cordon where people could only pass from south to north if carefully inspected. Israel could then perform a second pass with unarmed inspectors to verify that the demilitarization was successful.

This isn't the only scenario that would yield vastly lower civilian casualties while still getting rid of Hamas, but it's an example of one--and note that the logistical challenges would be immense, and the international cooperation needed would also be extensive.

Of course, Israel's right wing couldn't even conceive of something like that. Most of the world hates Israel, simply because it's Jewish, they think; the rest of the world will apply the most unrealistic double standards whenever it will make Israel look bad. And so you can't seek or consider anything like that; you have to go it alone. Furthermore, the best defense when surrounded by potential enemies is fear of your power, and a display of overwhelming power has the added benefit of stopping anyone else from becoming an aggressor, they would argue.

The kind of narrative that you're telling--almost never mentioning Hamas, always blaming Israel for civilian deaths (when Hamas could equally well avoid them by giving up)--plays directly into the hand of the right-wing. Almost all your fury is directed at Israel, almost none at Hamas, and you make lofty statements about saving civilians with technology that don't seem to actually pan out when questioned in detail.

If you actually believe that Hamas is trash, you should be spending substantial time pointing out alternative ways to get rid of the trash that are not nearly so harmful to civilians.

(Note also: you had better look up statistics on support for Hamas within Gaza before you propose anything, because your characterizations don't match polling by e.g. al-Jazeera, so you're in danger of coming up with naive unworkable ideas if you don't understand the situation; or if you're right and the polls are wrong, if you don't explain how you know that it will seem to others as if you have naive and unworkable ideas.)

What I suspect is that a thoughtful and possibly-effective approach like that makes enemies out of the sometimes-secretly pro-Hamas reflexively Israel-must-not-be-allowed-to-exist people who like your posts right now. You would be less popular. But you might actually be pushing towards a better solution rather than being part of the tide that tends to lead to people digging in their heels.