Question

I am not used to speaking with rabbis, so I ask your forgiveness for any lack of respect if it occurs unintentionally. And I am not well versed in Israeli politics, so I also ask your forgiveness for errors of that kind if there are any. I should also note that I do not attach importance to the hostages while writing this question (which, I assume, you would not object to based on your expression that kept recurring: “the hostage psychosis”).
As best I understand it, I stand on the right side of the political map in Israel, and I see this as a completely total victory for Israel. 1. Hamas rule preserves the separation of Palestinian forces (that is, if all the political and technical power of millions of people were behind a Palestinian Authority that wants peace, it would be hard to continue with the settlements (the entire West Bank/Judea and Samaria), and it would be difficult to impossible to go on without giving them territory and a state). 2. Hamas rule justifies Israel in maintaining the blockade (commercial, diplomatic, and technical) on Gaza (and by extension, Palestine)… that is, any direct connection they have with any other country not through us—and yes, I am talking about a complete total embargo. And this is permitted to us only because of their terrorism. (4, less important, and this may annoy you, but: you wrote, “Apparently in another two years we will be facing the same Hamas we faced on October 6,” and in my opinion that is true and good. Right now we are waiting for a new Simchat Torah to come after a long wait (a few years in my childish estimation, since Hamas is in bad shape today, both in terms of weapons and fighters) (and it will undoubtedly come, because the tension there will rise again until it explodes again) so that we can smash them completely again, and by “smash” I mean destroy their practical capabilities again for a few years.)
You wrote, “emotional presentism rules supreme,” but on the other hand, your rational presentism is leading the State of Israel to the doom of two states or to international and moral ruin. I once read here that you are not willing to build a strategy or tactic on miracles, and you also elaborated there that decisions should be made only on the basis of realistic considerations. But do you have any alternative other than a miracle that does not lead to either this or that? I am asking in order to receive an answer, not as a rhetorical expression.
You wrote, and I quote: “My claim is not against the positions but against the absence of arguments, and especially against the unwillingness to address arguments,” and you also wrote, “It is hard to escape the impression that the arguments being conducted (actually, not being conducted) today are not between opposing positions, but a confrontation between intellect and emotion.” In my opinion, unlike yours, the lack of engagement and confrontation stems from the fact that if we engage directly, we will no longer be the absolute good standing against the absolute evil in the story, and I think it is understandable if people do not enjoy that. Unlike the hostage psychosis, in my opinion you are trapped in a less attractive one: the psychosis that we are absolutely and one-dimensionally good.
 
I assumed from the beginning (foolishly, it turns out) that toppling Hamas was a false primary goal, and likewise regarding bringing back the hostages. You wrote that we achieved nothing, and that is not true—we beat Hamas to a pulp, we killed off their entire top echelon plus 50,000 people.
We need to think logically, coldly, and soberly, and not get trapped in and/or addicted to some particular way of thinking (that we are certainly not doing anything wrong) and keep holding onto it at unfair costs. In my opinion, if there were elections today I would most likely vote for Benjamin Netanyahu, and that is because of his cunning (guided by his love for the state and the land).
I apologize very much for the bluntness; I tried to phrase myself as well and as clearly as I could.