Hamas is not monolithic, of course, and it doesn't have a single leader calling the shots. From what we have seen ever since they grew from a terrorist organization into something resembling a political party, albeit with a terrorist wing, the various leaders take pretty much the kind of positions you would expect. Haniyeh became the political leader in the Gaza Strip, and while there is certainly still radical/jihadist rhetoric, he has also faced reality and made clear that Hamas can in fact live with a two state solution. Meshaal is more likely to make aggressive statements, what with being a leader in exile who doesn't have the every-day political business, and needing to ensure he remains in the spotlight. Though he, too, has endorsed a two state solution.

Radical organizations often grow more reasonable and willing to accept compromise in practice, but it may take much longer before they're willing to put a final, symbolic ending to their radicalism, changing their charter or official goals or that sort of thing. An obvious example is right next door - Likud's charter, last I checked, still demanded that the state of Israel control 100% of the territory of Mandate Palestine, and the Palestinians be damned (at one point they wanted Jordan as well).

And as I said to someone else - honestly, there is a rather wide range of compromises between just letting any kind of weapon into the Gaza Strip just like that, and a complete blockade with only the most urgently needed supplies allowed to pass - and even that not always. Same over the sea - ensuring that no heavy weapons are brought in doesn't exactly require you to block all ships or fire at fishermen who just want to fish in their own sea.

Given that many Gazans hate Hamas already, and that their foreign allies are either out of power, politically compromised due to murdering Sunnites on a massive scale in Syria, or simply have their hands full with other things, this was certainly a good time for Israel to get somewhere with Hamas. Through negotiations.

I suppose you're right that it's also a good time for a completely unnecessary bloodbath that will make peace even more unlikely, considering that whatever Israel does, Assad and ISIS are worse, so that's a good cover to have, and Hizbullah having its hands more than full is also convenient. If, that is, one thinks that peace between Israel and Palestine as a nation is bullshit and the real goal should be, well, whatever your goal is. A one state solution, possibly, which in fairness does have a few valid arguments going for it, but I don't think popular opinion on either side is much in favour, to put it mildly.

Those of us who do think that such peace should be the goal, are also realist enough to see that a Palestinian government that truly has the authority to make major deals, and to enforce them afterwards, inevitably needs to involve more than one party, and perhaps still more importantly can't be seen to be too blatantly Israel's lapdog. I can't really believe that you don't see that, hence I'm led to conclude that you are aiming for some other kind of outcome.