Like I said, I get it. Given present Israeli attitudes that I've seen (various interviews with "people on the street"), they want all the land and don't really care what happens to the Palestinians. Similar to Europeans (later the USA) and the indigenous peoples (later "native Americans"). The history is done. The natives are not getting Manhattan back (or pretty much anything else).

I think that's generally wrong. Most Israelis don't "want all the land." Public opinion varies by the specific wording of the question, but typically a majority is against the settlements in the West Bank, and an even bigger majority is against settlements in Gaza:

jewishvirtuallibrary.org - Israeli opinion on settlements and outposts present

Most Israelis don't care about the land. They don't want to annex it, they're perfectly happy with the borders of Israel being where they are. Or were - the "revert to the Green Line" plans were popular, back in the day.

What's happened instead is that Israelis have soured on the idea that there can be a deal where the Palestinians get a full and sovereign country in exchange for a guarantee of Israel's security. Because they believe that if there's a sovereign nation of Palestine, it will be governed by Hamas. So the attacks would continue, but now they will be even more brutal because Hamas will have access to vastly more resources.

Even if they get the leaders, someone else will take over. Either a new leader, or a new group that the survivors of Hamas can join.

As I've said many, many times, there are no good outcomes. But a new leader, or a new group, will have less experience, fewer connections, and more "growing pains" than the fully mature Hamas. So while it's still a bad outcome, destroying Hamas for a new group to arise is still better than letting a mostly-intact Hamas survive the 10/7 attacks.